Total Posts:149|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Marriage

Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2012 8:37:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
What is marriage for in a postmodern society?

(link of interest: http://marriage.about.com...)
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2012 8:39:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/19/2012 8:37:48 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
What is marriage for in a postmodern society?

(link of interest: http://marriage.about.com...)

lol depends on your construct....for you nothing. No need or any communial aspect or diad formation, it is all just science
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2012 8:51:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Love, dedication, commitment, secure environment for children, tax benefits(:D), importance of personal moral/religious beliefs.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2012 9:56:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think the first one is the only thing that a marriage can be based on if it is to last any period of time as a good marriage.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
tyler90az
Posts: 971
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2012 10:22:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/19/2012 10:06:54 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Marriage should just be eradicated.

I respect you a lot Royalpaladin and am interested in hearing more of your opinion. However, I have to respectfully disagree with you. The proof is in the pudding, since the decay of families our society has started too decay. Never before have we seen parents(mostly fathers) abandon their children and we are seeing the effects. The effects are more crime and no morals. For those reasons it is my firm belief that families are the foundation of society.
Today we begin in earnest the work of making sure that the world we leave our children is just a little bit better than the one we inhabit today. - President Obama
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2012 7:32:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/19/2012 10:22:38 AM, tyler90az wrote:
At 2/19/2012 10:06:54 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Marriage should just be eradicated.

I respect you a lot Royalpaladin and am interested in hearing more of your opinion. However, I have to respectfully disagree with you. The proof is in the pudding, since the decay of families our society has started too decay. Never before have we seen parents(mostly fathers) abandon their children and we are seeing the effects. The effects are more crime and no morals. For those reasons it is my firm belief that families are the foundation of society.

This.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
sadolite
Posts: 8,834
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2012 8:47:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/19/2012 8:37:48 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
What is marriage for in a postmodern society?

(link of interest: http://marriage.about.com...)

What modern about society today? It's degenerating back into the stone age.
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%
Marauder
Posts: 3,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2012 10:10:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/19/2012 9:56:31 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
I think the first one is the only thing that a marriage can be based on if it is to last any period of time as a good marriage.

I take you mean the one I put in bold here?

" You are in love with one another.
A desire to share your life with another.
To have a lifetime companion.
Realistic expectations.
Willingness to help one another fulfill their own needs and dreams."

to think marriage will last on that is based on the failed assumption the two of you will keep that same 'love' forever. or that you even both have any idea, or the same idea of what it is or should be.

'being in love with one another' in the movies is something that only happens once in a lifetime or only applicable between two special people matched for each other or something equally as stupid as that.

but actually its a very simple emotion that you can choose to apply and commit to anyone at will. many stalkers out there have restraining orders because they have not done well at controlling there need to apply the feeling well at all.
One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

A Scout is Obedient.
XDebatorX
Posts: 59
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2012 11:32:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
post modernism doesn't even exist. If I give you a bottle of medication and poison you better believe that the labels mean exactly what they mean. Objective truths do exist and everything isn't relative.
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2012 11:43:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Well since no one can see, taste, touch, or prove love is even real, I wouldn't say it exists and shouldn't even be considered a true factor in marriage.

We are all just chemically imbalanced animals who's sole illusion, of love, is based off nothing more then a meaningless reaction in the brain, that tells us to mate and be territorially selfish.

Marriage and life is nothing but a 70-100 year long high. (if you live that long)
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
MarquisX
Posts: 925
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2012 12:07:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/19/2012 10:06:54 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Marriage should just be eradicated.

Wow. Why? I'm against the idea of marriage now that I've been married and it didn't work out, but I wouldn't want to erase everyone's marriage. What makes you say this?
Sophisticated ignorance, write my curses in cursive
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2012 12:14:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/20/2012 12:07:53 AM, MarquisX wrote:
At 2/19/2012 10:06:54 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Marriage should just be eradicated.

Wow. Why? I'm against the idea of marriage now that I've been married and it didn't work out, but I wouldn't want to erase everyone's marriage. What makes you say this?

Marriage is an ancient institution that has historically been used to repress women. I do not care if two people decide to become "mates for life", but I think that the state should stop endorsing the construct. Marriage is also used to define the legitimacy of certain relationships, and frankly, conservatives do not have the right to determine which relationships are legitimate and which are not.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2012 12:23:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/20/2012 12:14:30 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/20/2012 12:07:53 AM, MarquisX wrote:
At 2/19/2012 10:06:54 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Marriage should just be eradicated.

Wow. Why? I'm against the idea of marriage now that I've been married and it didn't work out, but I wouldn't want to erase everyone's marriage. What makes you say this?

Marriage is an ancient institution that has historically been used to repress women.

Truth.

I'm all for people marrying, just know you are perpetuating a system created largely to process women as forms of property.

Families existed long before the concept of "marriage." They exist even when "marriage" is not in the picture. "Marriage" is, as has been pointed out, a cultural construct which, until the last century or so, was seen as the inevitable life goal of women. The marriage construct dictated how they were educated, were treated, were behaved, and were socialized.

It still does in many parts of the world.

The word "honeymoon" comes from the Norse word hjunottsmanathr which refers to the period of time after a man kidnaps his "wife" and hides while the opposing tribe looks for her. When they stop looking, "honeymoon is over."
Nougatrocity
Posts: 33
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2012 12:53:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/20/2012 12:14:30 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Marriage is an ancient institution that has historically been used to repress women. I do not care if two people decide to become "mates for life", but I think that the state should stop endorsing the construct. Marriage is also used to define the legitimacy of certain relationships, and frankly, conservatives do not have the right to determine which relationships are legitimate and which are not.
The bold is something I don't think I'd ever considered. Hours ago I was arguing with a friend whose solution to gay marriage is removing marriage from the law entirely. I argued mostly on the basis that it would be more difficult, but I think extra difficulty is worth never having to deal with another fight over what constitutes a legitimate relationship for consenting adults.
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2012 1:01:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/20/2012 12:53:43 AM, Nougatrocity wrote:
At 2/20/2012 12:14:30 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Marriage is an ancient institution that has historically been used to repress women. I do not care if two people decide to become "mates for life", but I think that the state should stop endorsing the construct. Marriage is also used to define the legitimacy of certain relationships, and frankly, conservatives do not have the right to determine which relationships are legitimate and which are not.
The bold is something I don't think I'd ever considered. Hours ago I was arguing with a friend whose solution to gay marriage is removing marriage from the law entirely. I argued mostly on the basis that it would be more difficult, but I think extra difficulty is worth never having to deal with another fight over what constitutes a legitimate relationship for consenting adults.

When I voted here in CA, i voted against it. Does it really affect me? not too much yet, but i feel it may in the near future when my kids get a bit older.

I just dont understand why they have to call it marriage? they've had unions...why don't just be original and come up with something new? If you want a PB & J sandwich, you new PB&J... if you use only one ingredient, its no longer a PB&J... no matter how bad you want to call it one. Que no?
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
Physik
Posts: 686
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2012 1:10:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/20/2012 1:01:09 AM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 2/20/2012 12:53:43 AM, Nougatrocity wrote:
At 2/20/2012 12:14:30 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Marriage is an ancient institution that has historically been used to repress women. I do not care if two people decide to become "mates for life", but I think that the state should stop endorsing the construct. Marriage is also used to define the legitimacy of certain relationships, and frankly, conservatives do not have the right to determine which relationships are legitimate and which are not.
The bold is something I don't think I'd ever considered. Hours ago I was arguing with a friend whose solution to gay marriage is removing marriage from the law entirely. I argued mostly on the basis that it would be more difficult, but I think extra difficulty is worth never having to deal with another fight over what constitutes a legitimate relationship for consenting adults.

When I voted here in CA, i voted against it. Does it really affect me? not too much yet, but i feel it may in the near future when my kids get a bit older.

You feel threatened that if your children happen to be gay, they would be living in an accepting society, and thus would feel encouraged to express themselves?

I don't see another way in which it would affect them.
"Just don't let them dissuade you. Stick to your beliefs no matter what and you'll be fine." - ConservativePolitico, the guy that accused me of being close-minded.

"We didn't start slavery, they themselves started it. When the white man first got to Africa they had already enslaved themselves, they just capitalized on an opportunity." - ConservativePolitico

"The Bible to me is a history book and requires very little faith to believe in." - ConservativePolitico
Nougatrocity
Posts: 33
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2012 1:25:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/20/2012 1:01:09 AM, Paradox_7 wrote:
I just dont understand why they have to call it marriage? they've had unions...why don't just be original and come up with something new? If you want a PB & J sandwich, you new PB&J... if you use only one ingredient, its no longer a PB&J... no matter how bad you want to call it one. Que no?
There is a recipe for peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. There ISN'T a recipe for relationships.

"They" want to call it marriage because that's what we call it when the government recognizes a relationship by bothering to take it into account in various circumstances.

And I echo the question: exactly what deleterious effects do you believe might befall your children?
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2012 1:33:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/20/2012 1:10:54 AM, Physik wrote:
At 2/20/2012 1:01:09 AM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 2/20/2012 12:53:43 AM, Nougatrocity wrote:
At 2/20/2012 12:14:30 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Marriage is an ancient institution that has historically been used to repress women. I do not care if two people decide to become "mates for life", but I think that the state should stop endorsing the construct. Marriage is also used to define the legitimacy of certain relationships, and frankly, conservatives do not have the right to determine which relationships are legitimate and which are not.
The bold is something I don't think I'd ever considered. Hours ago I was arguing with a friend whose solution to gay marriage is removing marriage from the law entirely. I argued mostly on the basis that it would be more difficult, but I think extra difficulty is worth never having to deal with another fight over what constitutes a legitimate relationship for consenting adults.

When I voted here in CA, i voted against it. Does it really affect me? not too much yet, but i feel it may in the near future when my kids get a bit older.

You feel threatened that if your children happen to be gay, they would be living in an accepting society, and thus would feel encouraged to express themselves?

I don't see another way in which it would affect them.

I know my children won't be gay, i'm more worried about them being asked to give their opinion and being ridiculed for it, since if your a Christian you pretty much get mocked for everything you believe. Since i don't have the money for private school, they will most likely be force fed to agree(not that they will) with things they are being taught are wrong at home.
is that hard concept to grasp? that just because you believe its helpful, doesn't mean it is to me. If you have 2 beliefs that are in conflict, who has more of the right to impose theirs over the other?
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2012 1:41:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/20/2012 1:25:13 AM, Nougatrocity wrote:
At 2/20/2012 1:01:09 AM, Paradox_7 wrote:
I just dont understand why they have to call it marriage? they've had unions...why don't just be original and come up with something new? If you want a PB & J sandwich, you new PB&J... if you use only one ingredient, its no longer a PB&J... no matter how bad you want to call it one. Que no?
There is a recipe for peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. There ISN'T a recipe for relationships.

"They" want to call it marriage because that's what we call it when the government recognizes a relationship by bothering to take it into account in various circumstances.

And I echo the question: exactly what deleterious effects do you believe might befall your children?

It's not about relationships, its about deffinitions, and possibilities. You cannot procreate if you have the same sex. You need PB(man) and Jelly(woman) to make this happen.

You guys seem to really be close minded to the idea that some people do not think its right... who are you to teach my child contrary to what i teach? i would never tell my children to be rude or disrespectful to anyone, gay, straight, black, pink, stinky, poor, or rich.. We have our beliefs, feel free to discuss them at any time you want, but do not be a d*ck and start mouthing off about how my belief is intolerant simply because we do not agree.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
Nougatrocity
Posts: 33
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2012 2:05:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/20/2012 1:33:22 AM, Paradox_7 wrote:
I know my children won't be gay, i'm more worried about them being asked to give their opinion and being ridiculed for it, since if your a Christian you pretty much get mocked for everything you believe. Since i don't have the money for private school, they will most likely be force fed to agree(not that they will) with things they are being taught are wrong at home.
How do you know for sure your children won't be gay? And what things are taught at home that you worry school will say are wrong?
is that hard concept to grasp? that just because you believe its helpful, doesn't mean it is to me. If you have 2 beliefs that are in conflict, who has more of the right to impose theirs over the other?
But allowing non-heterosexual relationships to be recognized as legal marriages imposes nothing upon you, whereas denying them means you are imposing your will on others and changing how they would live their lives.

It's not about relationships, its about deffinitions, and possibilities. You cannot procreate if you have the same sex. You need PB(man) and Jelly(woman) to make this happen.
Procreation has nothing to do with this discussion.

You guys seem to really be close minded to the idea that some people do not think its right... who are you to teach my child contrary to what i teach?
That depends entirely upon what you're teaching them. If a child were being taught that a diet of red meat and cola is healthy, we wouldn't respect a parent's right to keep their child from finding out otherwise.

i would never tell my children to be rude or disrespectful to anyone, gay, straight, black, pink, stinky, poor, or rich.. We have our beliefs, feel free to discuss them at any time you want, but do not be a d*ck and start mouthing off about how my belief is intolerant simply because we do not agree.
Okay. When was anyone a dick? When did anyone mouth off?
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2012 2:52:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/20/2012 2:05:02 AM, Nougatrocity wrote:
How do you know for sure your children won't be gay? And what things are taught at home that you worry school will say are wrong?

Because they'll have no reason to be. Completely different discussion, but i beleive homosexuality is a temptation people get, they can chose not to do. My children will understand this, and will learn not to act on every impulse just because it makes you feel good.

But allowing non-heterosexual relationships to be recognized as legal marriages imposes nothing upon you, whereas denying them means you are imposing your will on others and changing how they would live their lives.

You would be right, but i have no opposition to them being acknowledged as a couple, unions are readily available. I am against them calling it Marriage. Disagree as you may, and claim because some people (who also shouldn't be married) have used it as a way to control women, and use them as property; it was a tradition begun by people in the judeo-christian faith for sinners, to enjoy the pleasures of love and sex (which were made aswsome by God) the correct way, it was adultorized plenty by heterosexuals as well, but we base things of the rule, not the exception. I belive it's been patent by men and women; you can't Plagiarize simply because you want to feel normal..

Procreation has nothing to do with this discussion.
It absolutely does. Marriage is for procreating beings, and is the only reason the state even recognizes it. The only reason MOST people will ever consider it.::
Okay. When was anyone a dick? When did anyone mouth off?
Wow.. i was just putting that out there, since 9 out 10 times i get mocked or figuratively spit on, online that is... people tend to stay a little more reserved in person. sometimes...
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
Physik
Posts: 686
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2012 3:32:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/20/2012 1:33:22 AM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 2/20/2012 1:10:54 AM, Physik wrote:
At 2/20/2012 1:01:09 AM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 2/20/2012 12:53:43 AM, Nougatrocity wrote:
At 2/20/2012 12:14:30 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Marriage is an ancient institution that has historically been used to repress women. I do not care if two people decide to become "mates for life", but I think that the state should stop endorsing the construct. Marriage is also used to define the legitimacy of certain relationships, and frankly, conservatives do not have the right to determine which relationships are legitimate and which are not.
The bold is something I don't think I'd ever considered. Hours ago I was arguing with a friend whose solution to gay marriage is removing marriage from the law entirely. I argued mostly on the basis that it would be more difficult, but I think extra difficulty is worth never having to deal with another fight over what constitutes a legitimate relationship for consenting adults.

When I voted here in CA, i voted against it. Does it really affect me? not too much yet, but i feel it may in the near future when my kids get a bit older.

You feel threatened that if your children happen to be gay, they would be living in an accepting society, and thus would feel encouraged to express themselves?

I don't see another way in which it would affect them.

I know my children won't be gay

And you are the one who criticized me for taking the fact that Mongolia exists on faith...

i'm more worried about them being asked to give their opinion and being ridiculed for it,

You mean your opinion.

since if your a Christian you pretty much get mocked for everything you believe.

Don't be silly. First off, you live in America of all places. Don't even try and pull that 'Christianity is being persecuted' crap, you are the most privileged group in the country. Second, who on earth would want to mock your belief that god/his son sent god/his son down to earth to save us from god/his son.

Since i don't have the money for private school

I go to a private Catholic school, and even I'm not the most outspoken atheist.

they will most likely be force fed to agree(not that they will) with things they are being taught are wrong at home.

Perhaps because the things they are being taught at home are, in fact, wrong?

is that hard concept to grasp? that just because you believe its helpful, doesn't mean it is to me. If you have 2 beliefs that are in conflict, who has more of the right to impose theirs over the other?

Simple, the one which can be rationally justified and has greater likelihood.
"Just don't let them dissuade you. Stick to your beliefs no matter what and you'll be fine." - ConservativePolitico, the guy that accused me of being close-minded.

"We didn't start slavery, they themselves started it. When the white man first got to Africa they had already enslaved themselves, they just capitalized on an opportunity." - ConservativePolitico

"The Bible to me is a history book and requires very little faith to believe in." - ConservativePolitico
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2012 4:03:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago

I know my children won't be gay

And you are the one who criticized me for taking the fact that Mongolia exists on faith...

Hardly a critisizm. more like an observence, or revelation, apparently.

i'm more worried about them being asked to give their opinion and being ridiculed for it,

You mean your opinion.

Oh yes thats right, you're not to teach your children anything, simply..let them figure it out on there own. Be more of a sponsor then a parent.
since if your a Christian you pretty much get mocked for everything you believe.

Don't be silly. First off, you live in America of all places. Don't even try and pull that 'Christianity is being persecuted' crap, you are the most privileged group in the country. Second, who on earth would want to mock your belief that god/his son sent god/his son down to earth to save us from god/his son.

HAHAHAHA!! whew.. you seriously have no idea what your talking about..priviledged my @$$. I wish you'd come walk in my shoes a bit. I'm just basking in priviledge over here.
Since i don't have the money for private school

I go to a private Catholic school, and even I'm not the most outspoken atheist.

Ha, there isn't much difference to me between an athiest and a Catholic.. one claims they don't know why we are here or if there is as reason, but they know it's not God, and the others claim that some half dead nazi is Jesus incarnate.

they will most likely be force fed to agree(not that they will) with things they are being taught are wrong at home.

Perhaps because the things they are being taught at home are, in fact, wrong?
Hmm, according to whom? and according to what moral standard? the kind that can change continually depending on whats popular?:


Simple, the one which can be rationally justified and has greater likelihood.

Oh, so Obviously Christianity. Word.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
Nougatrocity
Posts: 33
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2012 4:36:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Please disregard Physik's button-pressing when reading my posts.

At 2/20/2012 2:52:03 AM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 2/20/2012 2:05:02 AM, Nougatrocity wrote:
How do you know for sure your children won't be gay? And what things are taught at home that you worry school will say are wrong?

Because they'll have no reason to be. Completely different discussion, but i beleive homosexuality is a temptation people get, they can chose not to do. My children will understand this, and will learn not to act on every impulse just because it makes you feel good.
I will formulate a debate and challenge you if you want to have that completely different discussion.
You seem to have neglected my second question.

Paradox_7 wrote:
Nougatrocity wrote:
But allowing non-heterosexual relationships to be recognized as legal marriages imposes nothing upon you, whereas denying them means you are imposing your will on others and changing how they would live their lives.

You would be right, but i have no opposition to them being acknowledged as a couple, unions are readily available. I am against them calling it Marriage. Disagree as you may, and claim because some people (who also shouldn't be married) have used it as a way to control women, and use them as property; it was a tradition begun by people in the judeo-christian faith for sinners, to enjoy the pleasures of love and sex (which were made aswsome by God) the correct way, it was adultorized plenty by heterosexuals as well, but we base things of the rule, not the exception. I belive it's been patent by men and women; you can't Plagiarize simply because you want to feel normal..

Civil unions are neither readily available nor the same thing as marriage. And no one is stealing the word marriage from anybody. At least one atheist used it over a century ago to describe marriage in entirely secular terms, and the word itself was derived from French six centuries ago.[1]

I really wish you could understand how hateful the italicized statement sounds. Actually, you should be able to sympathize. You know how you feel when you get mocked for your beliefs? That's how it feels when you tell other people they're not normal because of who they love.

Paradox_7 wrote:
Nougatrocity wrote:
Procreation has nothing to do with this discussion.
It absolutely does. Marriage is for procreating beings, and is the only reason the state even recognizes it. The only reason MOST people will ever consider it.
But it's not the only reason everyone will consider it, and we don't issue tests to make sure people are getting married specifically to have children, so where does this idea come from?
In fact, there are marriages that are specifically disallowed UNLESS one of the participants is sterile! According to usmarriagelaws.com, "Of the states that allow first cousins to marry, a few also require that one of the cousins no longer be able to conceive children."[2]

Paradox_7 wrote:
HAHAHAHA!! whew.. you seriously have no idea what your talking about..priviledged my @$$. I wish you'd come walk in my shoes a bit. I'm just basking in priviledge over here.
You have straight privilege, male privilege, and your religion does, in fact, mean you have that privilege in the US as well. You probably have able-bodied privilege and white privilege as well
Privilege doesn't mean you automatically do better than everyone without it. It just means you have fewer obstacles to contend with and you're not aware of most of them unless someone points them out (AND you listen to them).

******Sources******
[1] http://www.etymonline.com...
[2] http://usmarriagelaws.com... Point 6
Physik
Posts: 686
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2012 4:46:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/20/2012 4:03:24 AM, Paradox_7 wrote:

I know my children won't be gay

And you are the one who criticized me for taking the fact that Mongolia exists on faith...

Hardly a critisizm. more like an observence, or revelation, apparently.

Didn't address my point.

i'm more worried about them being asked to give their opinion and being ridiculed for it,

You mean your opinion.

Oh yes thats right, you're not to teach your children anything, simply..let them figure it out on there own. Be more of a sponsor then a parent.

Well, yeah? If my child happens to be gay, wonderful. If he happens to be straight, wonderful. I'm not going to influence him/her over irrelevant things like that.

You have an awful tendency to take my words and dramatize them. I did not say you should teach your child nothing. However, from the way you have described it, it would be doubtless that the child would be relaying your opinion, as you have made it perfectly clear that you will enforce said opinion on them.

since if your a Christian you pretty much get mocked for everything you believe.

Don't be silly. First off, you live in America of all places. Don't even try and pull that 'Christianity is being persecuted' crap, you are the most privileged group in the country. Second, who on earth would want to mock your belief that god/his son sent god/his son down to earth to save us from god/his son.

HAHAHAHA!! whew.. you seriously have no idea what your talking about..priviledged my @$$. I wish you'd come walk in my shoes a bit. I'm just basking in priviledge over here.

I did not say you, I said Christianity. Once again, blatantly misconstruing what I say.

Since i don't have the money for private school

I go to a private Catholic school, and even I'm not the most outspoken atheist.

Ha, there isn't much difference to me between an athiest and a Catholic.. one claims they don't know why we are here or if there is as reason, but they know it's not God, and the others claim that some half dead nazi is Jesus incarnate.

What?

they will most likely be force fed to agree(not that they will) with things they are being taught are wrong at home.

Perhaps because the things they are being taught at home are, in fact, wrong?
Hmm, according to whom? and according to what moral standard? the kind that can change continually depending on whats popular?:

According to reason, logic, and evidence.

Simple, the one which can be rationally justified and has greater likelihood.

Oh, so Obviously Christianity. Word.

*Facepalm*
"Just don't let them dissuade you. Stick to your beliefs no matter what and you'll be fine." - ConservativePolitico, the guy that accused me of being close-minded.

"We didn't start slavery, they themselves started it. When the white man first got to Africa they had already enslaved themselves, they just capitalized on an opportunity." - ConservativePolitico

"The Bible to me is a history book and requires very little faith to believe in." - ConservativePolitico
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2012 6:25:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/20/2012 1:41:58 AM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 2/20/2012 1:25:13 AM, Nougatrocity wrote:
At 2/20/2012 1:01:09 AM, Paradox_7 wrote:
I just dont understand why they have to call it marriage? they've had unions...why don't just be original and come up with something new? If you want a PB & J sandwich, you new PB&J... if you use only one ingredient, its no longer a PB&J... no matter how bad you want to call it one. Que no?
There is a recipe for peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. There ISN'T a recipe for relationships.

"They" want to call it marriage because that's what we call it when the government recognizes a relationship by bothering to take it into account in various circumstances.

And I echo the question: exactly what deleterious effects do you believe might befall your children?

It's not about relationships, its about deffinitions, and possibilities. You cannot procreate if you have the same sex. You need PB(man) and Jelly(woman) to make this happen.

You guys seem to really be close minded to the idea that some people do not think its right... who are you to teach my child contrary to what i teach? i would never tell my children to be rude or disrespectful to anyone, gay, straight, black, pink, stinky, poor, or rich.. We have our beliefs, feel free to discuss them at any time you want, but do not be a d*ck and start mouthing off about how my belief is intolerant simply because we do not agree.

Why should your beliefs take precedence? Your argument is that some people do not think that it is right, so it should not be implemented. Sorry, but that idea is completely ridiculous. Some people think that American should be an all-Caucasian society and that interracial marriages should be banned. Does that mean that they should? No. Since forcing the government to act on beliefs would freeze governmental action, we have the government pick the side that respects the rights of all. I honestly do not see how two other people getting married affects your family. You can feel free to be as bigoted as you please, but society will simply not care about your opinion. The problem is that you want to force your religious standards down the throats of the rest of humanity while crying abuse because nobody cares about your prejudiced bilge.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2012 4:07:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/19/2012 11:32:26 PM, XDebatorX wrote:
post modernism doesn't even exist. If I give you a bottle of medication and poison you better believe that the labels mean exactly what they mean. Objective truths do exist and everything isn't relative.

Unless you've switched the labels around so what says poison is medicine.

Unless the "poison" cures the disease you have, and the medication just makes it immune (http://en.wikipedia.org... for example).

Unless we are using the postmodern ZEITGEIST and not the philosophical stance.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2012 4:09:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/20/2012 1:01:09 AM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 2/20/2012 12:53:43 AM, Nougatrocity wrote:
At 2/20/2012 12:14:30 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Marriage is an ancient institution that has historically been used to repress women. I do not care if two people decide to become "mates for life", but I think that the state should stop endorsing the construct. Marriage is also used to define the legitimacy of certain relationships, and frankly, conservatives do not have the right to determine which relationships are legitimate and which are not.
The bold is something I don't think I'd ever considered. Hours ago I was arguing with a friend whose solution to gay marriage is removing marriage from the law entirely. I argued mostly on the basis that it would be more difficult, but I think extra difficulty is worth never having to deal with another fight over what constitutes a legitimate relationship for consenting adults.

When I voted here in CA, i voted against it. Does it really affect me? not too much yet, but i feel it may in the near future when my kids get a bit older.

I just dont understand why they have to call it marriage? they've had unions...why don't just be original and come up with something new? If you want a PB & J sandwich, you new PB&J... if you use only one ingredient, its no longer a PB&J... no matter how bad you want to call it one. Que no?

Marriage is the union of two people. So the two things are the same. If you want to say a PB&J sandwich must have WHITE bread (racist), or BROWN bread (racist), GRANARY bread (...racist?), then you've limited marriage down for no reason. Marriage is between two loving people, and limiting marriage for artificial reasons such as it has to be the opposite gender is discrimination.

(the stuff in brackets are jokes).
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2012 4:15:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/20/2012 2:52:03 AM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 2/20/2012 2:05:02 AM, Nougatrocity wrote:
How do you know for sure your children won't be gay? And what things are taught at home that you worry school will say are wrong?

Because they'll have no reason to be. Completely different discussion, but i beleive homosexuality is a temptation people get, they can chose not to do. My children will understand this, and will learn not to act on every impulse just because it makes you feel good.

Unfortunately, not only do children have a history of rebelling against their parents, but there is good reason to believe that homosexuality can be caused by genetic factors, so instead of letting people fulfil a natural desire, you'd be repressing a natural, bedrock position and causing more harm than good.

But allowing non-heterosexual relationships to be recognized as legal marriages imposes nothing upon you, whereas denying them means you are imposing your will on others and changing how they would live their lives.

You would be right, but i have no opposition to them being acknowledged as a couple, unions are readily available. I am against them calling it Marriage. Disagree as you may, and claim because some people (who also shouldn't be married) have used it as a way to control women, and use them as property; it was a tradition begun by people in the judeo-christian faith for sinners, to enjoy the pleasures of love and sex (which were made aswsome by God) the correct way, it was adultorized plenty by heterosexuals as well, but we base things of the rule, not the exception. I belive it's been patent by men and women; you can't Plagiarize simply because you want to feel normal..

You realise this disagreement is on a semantical name? The thing is, marriage is now a state institution, and Christian marriage is Christian. So, if anything, marriage should become the universal and Christian marriage if you want to call it between a man and a woman as per God.

Procreation has nothing to do with this discussion.
It absolutely does. Marriage is for procreating beings, and is the only reason the state even recognizes it. The only reason MOST people will ever consider it.::

This was the reason for the discussion, but getting married for children is like making a sandwich to play tennis. Yes, at a stretch a sandwich fuels you for playing tennis, but you'd want to buy a tennis racket first, and the sandwich is an add-on. Likewise, people (should) get married for love, then have children as a secondary desire.

Okay. When was anyone a dick? When did anyone mouth off?
Wow.. i was just putting that out there, since 9 out 10 times i get mocked or figuratively spit on, online that is... people tend to stay a little more reserved in person. sometimes...

Well, when people promote a form of discrimination, it gets difficult for some people to contain themselves. I put it bluntly: anti-gay marriage is a form of gay discrimination or formed from ignorance, in my eyes.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...