Total Posts:80|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Same sex marriage is legal

llamainmypocket
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 4:50:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 3:42:58 AM, bulproof wrote:
thate USA dragged kicking and screaming into reality.

I think by reality, do you mean a totally subjective and politically biased view of the world?

There's a long history of sexually open societies that did not have gay marriage. The concept of gay marriage is merely a modern phenomenon. The question isn't an issue of discrimination It is an issue of the meaning of marriage. that's a choice that society needs to make.

I'm a big believer in treating people how they want to be treated and something needs to be done legally on the issue of these unions but the meaning of marriage needs to be defined by society and respected.
Harbinger
Posts: 778
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 5:37:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 3:42:58 AM, bulproof wrote:
The USA dragged kicking and screaming into reality.

Good, you will have issue when they are lead blind and dumb into abyss.
Psalm 118:8, "It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man."
bulproof
Posts: 25,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 5:45:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 4:50:41 AM, llamainmypocket wrote:
At 6/27/2013 3:42:58 AM, bulproof wrote:
thate USA dragged kicking and screaming into reality.

I think by reality, do you mean a totally subjective and politically biased view of the world?

There's a long history of sexually open societies that did not have gay marriage. The concept of gay marriage is merely a modern phenomenon. The question isn't an issue of discrimination It is an issue of the meaning of marriage. that's a choice that society needs to make.

I'm a big believer in treating people how they want to be treated and something needs to be done legally on the issue of these unions but the meaning of marriage needs to be defined by society and respected.
This is absolutely true. It is not up to some religious zealots to define marriage. Because if they do have that right, then so do the Muslims and fringe LDS factions or Hindus or any minority religious sect. That is not how marriage should be defined.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 9:52:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 4:50:41 AM, llamainmypocket wrote:
At 6/27/2013 3:42:58 AM, bulproof wrote:
thate USA dragged kicking and screaming into reality.

I think by reality, do you mean a totally subjective and politically biased view of the world?

There's a long history of sexually open societies that did not have gay marriage. The concept of gay marriage is merely a modern phenomenon. The question isn't an issue of discrimination It is an issue of the meaning of marriage. that's a choice that society needs to make.

I'm a big believer in treating people how they want to be treated and something needs to be done legally on the issue of these unions but the meaning of marriage needs to be defined by society and respected.

The concept of some sort of "union" between members of the same sex (especially males) actually dates back to antiquity, even so far as as having formal ceremonies:
http://www.nytimes.com...

Ok, so these weren't "marriages." But let's not equivocate. Marriages, historically were: A) a way to ensure the lineage of a family; B) to forge political alliances; C) a way for fathers to rid themselves of a dependent.

Does that happen today? Sure, but not the majority...

(Digression)

"a way to ensure the lineage of a family" =/= "start a family/procreate"

I know some Anti-SSM yahoo will try to forge a link there, but the concept I'm talking about is not the same. I'm talking about the perpetuation of a family as a pseudo-political unit, involving the almost robotic production of male offspring whose primary value is their family name.

This is NOT the same as two people simply coming together to start a family of their own.
(/Digression)

Guess what? What a marriage "is" has changed over time and likely will continue to change over time. This notion that society has to "define" marriage smacks of the same rigid enforcement of arbitrary concepts that put us in the situation in the first place!

Guess what x2? People are free to define marriage however the hell the wish already? If you think marriage should only be between a man and a woman, you get to think that and only marriage a man (if you are a woman) or a woman (if you are a man).

The issue here has nothing to do with the social or individual concept of marriage. What it has to do was a designation issued by the state that confers certain government-provided benefits to a certain class of people. DOMA was smacked down because the Federal government was attempting to deny the validity of this designation, countermanding the authority of the state. Prop. 8 was denied on the basis of there not being any standing in the Federal court system to bring the case.

I agree that we, as a people, should decide whether or not the government should be issuing these designations and what benefits they should confer. However, what we call it is immaterial. Whether it is aligned with any preexisting social concepts is immaterial. What is material is, if we are going to say that one class of people gets these benefits but another does not, that we have a damned good reason why we should be discriminating. And being grossed out is not a reason.
bulproof
Posts: 25,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 9:59:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 9:52:31 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/27/2013 4:50:41 AM, llamainmypocket wrote:
At 6/27/2013 3:42:58 AM, bulproof wrote:
thate USA dragged kicking and screaming into reality.

I think by reality, do you mean a totally subjective and politically biased view of the world?

There's a long history of sexually open societies that did not have gay marriage. The concept of gay marriage is merely a modern phenomenon. The question isn't an issue of discrimination It is an issue of the meaning of marriage. that's a choice that society needs to make.

I'm a big believer in treating people how they want to be treated and something needs to be done legally on the issue of these unions but the meaning of marriage needs to be defined by society and respected.

The concept of some sort of "union" between members of the same sex (especially males) actually dates back to antiquity, even so far as as having formal ceremonies:
http://www.nytimes.com...

Ok, so these weren't "marriages." But let's not equivocate. Marriages, historically were: A) a way to ensure the lineage of a family; B) to forge political alliances; C) a way for fathers to rid themselves of a dependent.

Does that happen today? Sure, but not the majority...

(Digression)

"a way to ensure the lineage of a family" =/= "start a family/procreate"

I know some Anti-SSM yahoo will try to forge a link there, but the concept I'm talking about is not the same. I'm talking about the perpetuation of a family as a pseudo-political unit, involving the almost robotic production of male offspring whose primary value is their family name.

This is NOT the same as two people simply coming together to start a family of their own.
(/Digression)

Guess what? What a marriage "is" has changed over time and likely will continue to change over time. This notion that society has to "define" marriage smacks of the same rigid enforcement of arbitrary concepts that put us in the situation in the first place!

Guess what x2? People are free to define marriage however the hell the wish already? If you think marriage should only be between a man and a woman, you get to think that and only marriage a man (if you are a woman) or a woman (if you are a man).

The issue here has nothing to do with the social or individual concept of marriage. What it has to do was a designation issued by the state that confers certain government-provided benefits to a certain class of people. DOMA was smacked down because the Federal government was attempting to deny the validity of this designation, countermanding the authority of the state. Prop. 8 was denied on the basis of there not being any standing in the Federal court system to bring the case.

I agree that we, as a people, should decide whether or not the government should be issuing these designations and what benefits they should confer. However, what we call it is immaterial. Whether it is aligned with any preexisting social concepts is immaterial. What is material is, if we are going to say that one class of people gets these benefits but another does not, that we have a damned good reason why we should be discriminating. And being grossed out is not a reason.

In Islam all the children of all the wives have the fathers name, but none of the wives have that name, thus proving that only the male is of any importance. The woman in Islam and fundie christianity is an incubator. As god intended.
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 11:00:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 3:42:58 AM, bulproof wrote:
The USA dragged kicking and screaming into reality.

I could be wrong, but from what I understand, gay folks can only get married in around 13 states. Not only can they not get married in the other states, but (again, I'm unclear on this) I *think* the illegal states can refuse to ackowledge the marriage if it was done in one of the legal states. If that's true, then this was a huge step, but it seems misleading to say what you're saying.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 11:10:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 11:00:06 AM, Rusty wrote:
At 6/27/2013 3:42:58 AM, bulproof wrote:
The USA dragged kicking and screaming into reality.

I could be wrong, but from what I understand, gay folks can only get married in around 13 states. Not only can they not get married in the other states, but (again, I'm unclear on this) I *think* the illegal states can refuse to ackowledge the marriage if it was done in one of the legal states. If that's true, then this was a huge step, but it seems misleading to say what you're saying.

Technically, states are supposed to recognize statuses conferred by other states:

"Article. IV. Section. 1.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."


Consider that driver's licenses are issued state-by-state; what havoc would it wreak if states decided not to recognize the licenses issued by other states, but still enforced laws regarding driving without a license? That wouldn't fly very far.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 11:11:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 11:10:37 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/27/2013 11:00:06 AM, Rusty wrote:
At 6/27/2013 3:42:58 AM, bulproof wrote:
The USA dragged kicking and screaming into reality.

I could be wrong, but from what I understand, gay folks can only get married in around 13 states. Not only can they not get married in the other states, but (again, I'm unclear on this) I *think* the illegal states can refuse to ackowledge the marriage if it was done in one of the legal states. If that's true, then this was a huge step, but it seems misleading to say what you're saying.

Technically, states are supposed to recognize statuses conferred by other states:

"Article. IV. Section. 1.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."


Consider that driver's licenses are issued state-by-state; what havoc would it wreak if states decided not to recognize the licenses issued by other states, but still enforced laws regarding driving without a license? That wouldn't fly very far.

That said, several states have explicitly said they will refuse to acknowledge SSM status of other states, but there has been no case or court ruling on the constitutionality of those clauses.
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 11:23:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 11:10:37 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/27/2013 11:00:06 AM, Rusty wrote:
At 6/27/2013 3:42:58 AM, bulproof wrote:
The USA dragged kicking and screaming into reality.

I could be wrong, but from what I understand, gay folks can only get married in around 13 states. Not only can they not get married in the other states, but (again, I'm unclear on this) I *think* the illegal states can refuse to ackowledge the marriage if it was done in one of the legal states. If that's true, then this was a huge step, but it seems misleading to say what you're saying.

Technically, states are supposed to recognize statuses conferred by other states:

"Article. IV. Section. 1.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."


Consider that driver's licenses are issued state-by-state; what havoc would it wreak if states decided not to recognize the licenses issued by other states, but still enforced laws regarding driving without a license? That wouldn't fly very far.

Thanks for clearing it up a bit. I guess I was basing that off of things I was hearing about the different sections in DOMA. It's all very confusing to me.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 11:32:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 3:42:58 AM, bulproof wrote:
The USA dragged kicking and screaming into reality.

If anything, one can only stand in awe at the mightily effective rhetoric the same-sex marriage movement has adopted. They've managed to convince otherwise reasonable people to confuse an donkey for a steed by declaring by sheer judicial fiat the equal dignity under the law of sodomy and the family. All by the use of laughable #samelove new age nonsense and somehow convincing that not supporting attacks upon the public good and such entails one being "bigoted" and "against equality".
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 12:33:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 11:32:51 AM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 6/27/2013 3:42:58 AM, bulproof wrote:
The USA dragged kicking and screaming into reality.

If anything, one can only stand in awe at the mightily effective rhetoric the same-sex marriage movement has adopted. They've managed to convince otherwise reasonable people to confuse an donkey for a steed by declaring by sheer judicial fiat the equal dignity under the law of sodomy and the family. All by the use of laughable #samelove new age nonsense and somehow convincing that not supporting attacks upon the public good and such entails one being "bigoted" and "against equality".

Actually all they had to do was recognize that the Federal government doesn't have the authority to overrule state-issued designations. Do you disagree with that?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 12:36:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 5:37:45 AM, Harbinger wrote:
At 6/27/2013 3:42:58 AM, bulproof wrote:
The USA dragged kicking and screaming into reality.

Good, you will have issue when they are lead blind and dumb into abyss.

No, you are just a bigot, and should be ashamed of yourself.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 12:37:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 11:32:51 AM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 6/27/2013 3:42:58 AM, bulproof wrote:
The USA dragged kicking and screaming into reality.

If anything, one can only stand in awe at the mightily effective rhetoric the same-sex marriage movement has adopted. They've managed to convince otherwise reasonable people to confuse an donkey for a steed by declaring by sheer judicial fiat the equal dignity under the law of sodomy and the family. All by the use of laughable #samelove new age nonsense and somehow convincing that not supporting attacks upon the public good and such entails one being "bigoted" and "against equality".

No, you are a shameless bigot. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality. You are on the same level as a racist, opposing somebody because they are different than you. Thank God I cam not a Christain ;)

I truly could not live with myself. So full of hate...
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 12:40:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 12:37:53 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/27/2013 11:32:51 AM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 6/27/2013 3:42:58 AM, bulproof wrote:
The USA dragged kicking and screaming into reality.

If anything, one can only stand in awe at the mightily effective rhetoric the same-sex marriage movement has adopted. They've managed to convince otherwise reasonable people to confuse an donkey for a steed by declaring by sheer judicial fiat the equal dignity under the law of sodomy and the family. All by the use of laughable #samelove new age nonsense and somehow convincing that not supporting attacks upon the public good and such entails one being "bigoted" and "against equality".

No, you are a shameless bigot. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality. You are on the same level as a racist, opposing somebody because they are different than you. Thank God I cam not a Christain ;)

I truly could not live with myself. So full of hate...

Says the normative relativist consequentialist...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 12:43:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 12:40:11 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 6/27/2013 12:37:53 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/27/2013 11:32:51 AM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 6/27/2013 3:42:58 AM, bulproof wrote:
The USA dragged kicking and screaming into reality.

If anything, one can only stand in awe at the mightily effective rhetoric the same-sex marriage movement has adopted. They've managed to convince otherwise reasonable people to confuse an donkey for a steed by declaring by sheer judicial fiat the equal dignity under the law of sodomy and the family. All by the use of laughable #samelove new age nonsense and somehow convincing that not supporting attacks upon the public good and such entails one being "bigoted" and "against equality".

No, you are a shameless bigot. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality. You are on the same level as a racist, opposing somebody because they are different than you. Thank God I cam not a Christain ;)

I truly could not live with myself. So full of hate...

Says the normative relativist consequentialist...

I did not say anything about morality. I said your position repulses me, and you should be ashamed because of your hatred, as most reasonable people would be ashamed to be opposed to somebody because they are different. This does not mean your position is objectively immoral. However, it does go against the progressive collectively subjective morality that is generally accepted in today's society.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 12:50:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 12:43:42 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/27/2013 12:40:11 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 6/27/2013 12:37:53 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/27/2013 11:32:51 AM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 6/27/2013 3:42:58 AM, bulproof wrote:
The USA dragged kicking and screaming into reality.

If anything, one can only stand in awe at the mightily effective rhetoric the same-sex marriage movement has adopted. They've managed to convince otherwise reasonable people to confuse an donkey for a steed by declaring by sheer judicial fiat the equal dignity under the law of sodomy and the family. All by the use of laughable #samelove new age nonsense and somehow convincing that not supporting attacks upon the public good and such entails one being "bigoted" and "against equality".

No, you are a shameless bigot. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality. You are on the same level as a racist, opposing somebody because they are different than you. Thank God I cam not a Christain ;)

I truly could not live with myself. So full of hate...

Says the normative relativist consequentialist...

I did not say anything about morality. I said your position repulses me, and you should be ashamed because of your hatred, as most reasonable people would be ashamed to be opposed to somebody because they are different.

This is just (pardon me) a load of new age, hippie "love everyone" nonsense. I'm not "opposed" to anybody to begin with (whatever that is to mean). I'm also not "opposed" to x because x is "different". I am opposed to same-sex marriage because I find that a.) the grounds upon which support for same-sex marriage stands commits one to the endorsing of a host of other absurd configuration of "marriage"; b.) the accepting of same-sex marriage is utterly pernicious to the public good; and c.) there is no compelling reason whatsoever why the state should endorse or subsidize same-sex "marriages".

This does not mean your position is objectively immoral. However, it does go against the progressive collectively subjective morality that is generally accepted in today's society.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 12:56:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 12:50:04 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 6/27/2013 12:43:42 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/27/2013 12:40:11 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 6/27/2013 12:37:53 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/27/2013 11:32:51 AM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 6/27/2013 3:42:58 AM, bulproof wrote:
The USA dragged kicking and screaming into reality.

If anything, one can only stand in awe at the mightily effective rhetoric the same-sex marriage movement has adopted. They've managed to convince otherwise reasonable people to confuse an donkey for a steed by declaring by sheer judicial fiat the equal dignity under the law of sodomy and the family. All by the use of laughable #samelove new age nonsense and somehow convincing that not supporting attacks upon the public good and such entails one being "bigoted" and "against equality".

No, you are a shameless bigot. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality. You are on the same level as a racist, opposing somebody because they are different than you. Thank God I cam not a Christain ;)

I truly could not live with myself. So full of hate...

Says the normative relativist consequentialist...

I did not say anything about morality. I said your position repulses me, and you should be ashamed because of your hatred, as most reasonable people would be ashamed to be opposed to somebody because they are different.

This is just (pardon me) a load of new age, hippie "love everyone" nonsense.

Appeal to ridicule. Just rack up the fallacies there my friend... Also, Jesus taught to love everyone. I guess you are just a bad a Christian as you are a human being. Of course, this is "my opinion".

I'm not "opposed" to anybody to begin with (whatever that is to mean). I'm also not "opposed" to x because x is "different". I am opposed to same-sex marriage because I find that a.) the grounds upon which support for same-sex marriage stands commits one to the endorsing of a host of other absurd configuration of "marriage";

No it does not, as consenting adults with rational capabilities is a necessary condition with regards to marriage in civilized countries. You can go to the middle east and marry a 9 year old, but this type of morality is rather less evolved.

b.) the accepting of same-sex marriage is utterly pernicious to the public good;.

The above is a bare assertion. If it is so harmful, then why does the general public disagree with you? I can walk down the street right now and ask a random person if they oppose gays, I will probably get a "no". What is harmful about it?

and c.) there is no compelling reason whatsoever why the state should endorse or subsidize same-sex "marriages".

They are adult human beings. Why are you such a homophobe? Don't you feel embarrassed about your iron age thinking?


This does not mean your position is objectively immoral. However, it does go against the progressive collectively subjective morality that is generally accepted in today's society.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 1:16:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 12:56:02 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/27/2013 12:50:04 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 6/27/2013 12:43:42 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/27/2013 12:40:11 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 6/27/2013 12:37:53 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/27/2013 11:32:51 AM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 6/27/2013 3:42:58 AM, bulproof wrote:
The USA dragged kicking and screaming into reality.

If anything, one can only stand in awe at the mightily effective rhetoric the same-sex marriage movement has adopted. They've managed to convince otherwise reasonable people to confuse an donkey for a steed by declaring by sheer judicial fiat the equal dignity under the law of sodomy and the family. All by the use of laughable #samelove new age nonsense and somehow convincing that not supporting attacks upon the public good and such entails one being "bigoted" and "against equality".

No, you are a shameless bigot. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality. You are on the same level as a racist, opposing somebody because they are different than you. Thank God I cam not a Christain ;)

I truly could not live with myself. So full of hate...

Says the normative relativist consequentialist...

I did not say anything about morality. I said your position repulses me, and you should be ashamed because of your hatred, as most reasonable people would be ashamed to be opposed to somebody because they are different.

This is just (pardon me) a load of new age, hippie "love everyone" nonsense.

Appeal to ridicule. Just rack up the fallacies there my friend... Also, Jesus taught to love everyone.

More new age hippie nonsense. "Jesus told us to love everyone = support same-sex marriage, dude!"

I guess you are just a bad a Christian as you are a human being. Of course, this is "my opinion".

I'm still hoping this was an attempt at comic relief.


I'm not "opposed" to anybody to begin with (whatever that is to mean). I'm also not "opposed" to x because x is "different". I am opposed to same-sex marriage because I find that a.) the grounds upon which support for same-sex marriage stands commits one to the endorsing of a host of other absurd configuration of "marriage";

No it does not, as consenting adults with rational capabilities is a necessary condition with regards to marriage in civilized countries.

Err - need I draw the reductio there?

You can go to the middle east and marry a 9 year old, but this type of morality is rather less evolved.

In any case, I've made my case to the effect that the grounds upon which support for same-sex marriage stands commits one to the endorsing of a host of other absurd configuration of "marriage" vis-a-vis my Argument from Consistency in the past and in many other threads.


b.) the accepting of same-sex marriage is utterly pernicious to the public good;.

The above is a bare assertion. If it is so harmful, then why does the general public disagree with you? I can walk down the street right now and ask a random person if they oppose gays, I will probably get a "no". What is harmful about it?

This is laughable, RT. You think that if some public policy has general public support that such public policy will by default not be pernicious? Or that public opinion dictates whether the decreeing of a law will be or will not be pernicious to the public good?

In any case, the accepting of same-sex marriage promotes the idea of making the the happiness of the parties to the marriage the purpose of marriage rather than the good of the children or the social order. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years.


and c.) there is no compelling reason whatsoever why the state should endorse or subsidize same-sex "marriages".

They are adult human beings. Why are you such a homophobe? Don't you feel embarrassed about your iron age thinking?

Wow. Not only do you evade the point, but you manage to do so while insulting.

As I've mentioned, I think it is quite clear that the reason why the state has such a compelling interest in marriage is because it is literally tasked with the continuation of society and in stabilizing it. As such, there is not a more important societal function. You may, of course, think that marriage does not exist for this purpose. Indeed, you might be convinced that marriage really exists to join/recognize individuals who are lovingly committed to one another. But then, what interest would the state have in subsidizing relationships simply because two people have fuzzy feelings for one another, or to recognize that two people sodomize? Not much, I submit. So the supporter of same-sex marriage must, as I see it, convince me of two things: (i) that their position is coherent; and (ii) that the purpose of marriage as they envision it is of compelling interest to the state and public good. I've seen plenty of reasons to think that neither is true and next to none to the contrary.



This does not mean your position is objectively immoral. However, it does go against the progressive collectively subjective morality that is generally accepted in today's society.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 1:26:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 1:16:41 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 6/27/2013 12:56:02 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/27/2013 12:50:04 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 6/27/2013 12:43:42 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/27/2013 12:40:11 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 6/27/2013 12:37:53 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/27/2013 11:32:51 AM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 6/27/2013 3:42:58 AM, bulproof wrote:
The USA dragged kicking and screaming into reality.

If anything, one can only stand in awe at the mightily effective rhetoric the same-sex marriage movement has adopted. They've managed to convince otherwise reasonable people to confuse an donkey for a steed by declaring by sheer judicial fiat the equal dignity under the law of sodomy and the family. All by the use of laughable #samelove new age nonsense and somehow convincing that not supporting attacks upon the public good and such entails one being "bigoted" and "against equality".

No, you are a shameless bigot. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality. You are on the same level as a racist, opposing somebody because they are different than you. Thank God I cam not a Christain ;)

I truly could not live with myself. So full of hate...

Says the normative relativist consequentialist...

I did not say anything about morality. I said your position repulses me, and you should be ashamed because of your hatred, as most reasonable people would be ashamed to be opposed to somebody because they are different.

This is just (pardon me) a load of new age, hippie "love everyone" nonsense.

Appeal to ridicule. Just rack up the fallacies there my friend... Also, Jesus taught to love everyone.

More new age hippie nonsense. "Jesus told us to love everyone = support same-sex marriage, dude!"

Fallacious appeal to ridicule. Jesus did tell you to love everyone. Do you even know what Christianity is?


I guess you are just a bad a Christian as you are a human being. Of course, this is "my opinion".

I'm still hoping this was an attempt at comic relief.

The only thing comical here is you trying to justify bigotry. I am just grabbing my popcorn and enjoying this train wreck...



I'm not "opposed" to anybody to begin with (whatever that is to mean). I'm also not "opposed" to x because x is "different". I am opposed to same-sex marriage because I find that a.) the grounds upon which support for same-sex marriage stands commits one to the endorsing of a host of other absurd configuration of "marriage";

No it does not, as consenting adults with rational capabilities is a necessary condition with regards to marriage in civilized countries.

Err - need I draw the reductio there?


You can go to the middle east and marry a 9 year old, but this type of morality is rather less evolved.

In any case, I've made my case to the effect that the grounds upon which support for same-sex marriage stands commits one to the endorsing of a host of other absurd configuration of "marriage" vis-a-vis my Argument from Consistency in the past and in many other threads.

Your arguments are terrible though. Maybe you should look at the responses in those threads.



b.) the accepting of same-sex marriage is utterly pernicious to the public good;.

The above is a bare assertion. If it is so harmful, then why does the general public disagree with you? I can walk down the street right now and ask a random person if they oppose gays, I will probably get a "no". What is harmful about it?

This is laughable, RT. You think that if some public policy has general public support that such public policy will by default not be pernicious? Or that public opinion dictates whether the decreeing of a law will be or will not be pernicious to the public good?

Straw-man fallacy. I did not say that. Also, this is the switching the burden of proof fallacy. You made the claim, but did not support it.


In any case, the accepting of same-sex marriage promotes the idea of making the the happiness of the parties to the marriage the purpose of marriage rather than the good of the children or the social order.

Society accepts same sex marriage. It is only going against your bigotry.

When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years.

You have provided 0 reasons to think homosexuality is bad for society.


and c.) there is no compelling reason whatsoever why the state should endorse or subsidize same-sex "marriages".

They are adult human beings. Why are you such a homophobe? Don't you feel embarrassed about your iron age thinking?

Wow. Not only do you evade the point, but you manage to do so while insulting.

You deserve the insults though, in my opinion.


As I've mentioned, I think it is quite clear that the reason why the state has such a compelling interest in marriage is because it is literally tasked with the continuation of society and in stabilizing it. As such, there is not a more important societal function.

Homosexuality helps the population control problem. Straight people are the problem with society. Popping out babies and causing poverty.

You may, of course, think that marriage does not exist for this purpose. Indeed, you might be convinced that marriage really exists to join/recognize individuals who are lovingly committed to one another.

Consensual adults specifically.

But then, what interest would the state have in subsidizing relationships simply because two people have fuzzy feelings for one another, or to recognize that two people sodomize? Not much, I submit.

A lot. Human Rights. The fact that you think human rights is "not much" is scary!

So the supporter of same-sex marriage must, as I see it, convince me of two things: (i) that their position is coherent; and (ii) that the purpose of marriage as they envision it is of compelling interest to the state and public good. I've seen plenty of reasons to think that neither is true and next to none to the contrary.

Switching the burden of proof.




This does not mean your position is objectively immoral. However, it does go against the progressive collectively subjective morality that is generally accepted in today's society.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 1:29:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'll throw in marriages were originally slave contracts from Hammurabi's Code, and we only get monogamy from the Roman tradition of marriage which Christianity adopted - it cannot be found in any of the Old Testament which promoted polyamory, and cannot be found with meaning in the New Testament with exception for the Roman's viewpoints on marriage. We have moreover early Christians who talk about how the Roman marital system fits nicely with their view of restricted love for another partner. It was "stolen", not "invented", and has never had a hard steadfast meaning, except in the long-lasting culture of Rome.
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...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 1:31:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If most of the world were gay, that would solve so many of our problems. Less people sucking up our finite resources, and less people raising Co2 emissions. Acting like homosexuality is not beneficial to society is laughable.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 1:32:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 1:26:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/27/2013 1:16:41 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
More new age hippie nonsense. "Jesus told us to love everyone = support same-sex marriage, dude!"

Fallacious appeal to ridicule. Jesus did tell you to love everyone. Do you even know what Christianity is?

Not to jump into your conversation, but Sovereign never disputed what you claimed Jesus said. He asked how loving everyone all of a sudden turns into support same sex marriage. Do you mind addressing that point specifically?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 1:33:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 1:32:00 PM, stubs wrote:
At 6/27/2013 1:26:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/27/2013 1:16:41 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
More new age hippie nonsense. "Jesus told us to love everyone = support same-sex marriage, dude!"

Fallacious appeal to ridicule. Jesus did tell you to love everyone. Do you even know what Christianity is?

Not to jump into your conversation, but Sovereign never disputed what you claimed Jesus said. He asked how loving everyone all of a sudden turns into support same sex marriage. Do you mind addressing that point specifically?

Sure, I will address it: it is a straw-man. I never said loving everyone leads to supporting same sex marriage. It leads to acceptance of somebody who is different.
llamainmypocket
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 1:45:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 5:45:43 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/27/2013 4:50:41 AM, llamainmypocket wrote:
At 6/27/2013 3:42:58 AM, bulproof wrote:
thate USA dragged kicking and screaming into reality.

I think by reality, do you mean a totally subjective and politically biased view of the world?

There's a long history of sexually open societies that did not have gay marriage. The concept of gay marriage is merely a modern phenomenon. The question isn't an issue of discrimination It is an issue of the meaning of marriage. that's a choice that society needs to make.

I'm a big believer in treating people how they want to be treated and something needs to be done legally on the issue of these unions but the meaning of marriage needs to be defined by society and respected.
This is absolutely true. It is not up to some religious zealots to define marriage. Because if they do have that right, then so do the Muslims and fringe LDS factions or Hindus or any minority religious sect. That is not how marriage should be defined.

Given that there have been so many societies that were sexually open and did not have gay marriage then it would appear as though it's not an issue of "religious zealots" defining marriage but rather secular zealots redefining marriage.

Either way, if it is a society of religious zealots and it's a decision of society then it's a decision of religious zealous... My use of "religious zealot" does not imply agreement with you. I suspect it really just means, those that disagree with you.
llamainmypocket
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 2:02:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 9:52:31 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/27/2013 4:50:41 AM, llamainmypocket wrote:
At 6/27/2013 3:42:58 AM, bulproof wrote:
thate USA dragged kicking and screaming into reality.

I think by reality, do you mean a totally subjective and politically biased view of the world?

There's a long history of sexually open societies that did not have gay marriage. The concept of gay marriage is merely a modern phenomenon. The question isn't an issue of discrimination It is an issue of the meaning of marriage. that's a choice that society needs to make.

I'm a big believer in treating people how they want to be treated and something needs to be done legally on the issue of these unions but the meaning of marriage needs to be defined by society and respected.

The concept of some sort of "union" between members of the same sex (especially males) actually dates back to antiquity, even so far as as having formal ceremonies:
http://www.nytimes.com...

Romans were sexually open and not christian and men only married women. I'm not opposed to some sort of civil union. I'm opposed to the meaning of the word marriage being altered thus changing the nature of the relationship people have against the will of society.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because it's wrong that gay people don't have a kind of union doesn't make changing the union of others against their will right.

Ok, so these weren't "marriages." But let's not equivocate. Marriages, historically were: A) a way to ensure the lineage of a family; B) to forge political alliances; C) a way for fathers to rid themselves of a dependent.

Does that happen today? Sure, but not the majority...


(Digression)

"a way to ensure the lineage of a family" =/= "start a family/procreate"

I know some Anti-SSM yahoo will try to forge a link there, but the concept I'm talking about is not the same. I'm talking about the perpetuation of a family as a pseudo-political unit, involving the almost robotic production of male offspring whose primary value is their family name.

This is NOT the same as two people simply coming together to start a family of their own.
(/Digression)

Guess what? What a marriage "is" has changed over time and likely will continue to change over time. This notion that society has to "define" marriage smacks of the same rigid enforcement of arbitrary concepts that put us in the situation in the first place!

Guess what x2? People are free to define marriage however the hell the wish already? If you think marriage should only be between a man and a woman, you get to think that and only marriage a man (if you are a woman) or a woman (if you are a man).

The issue here has nothing to do with the social or individual concept of marriage. What it has to do was a designation issued by the state that confers certain government-provided benefits to a certain class of people. DOMA was smacked down because the Federal government was attempting to deny the validity of this designation, countermanding the authority of the state. Prop. 8 was denied on the basis of there not being any standing in the Federal court system to bring the case.

I agree that we, as a people, should decide whether or not the government should be issuing these designations and what benefits they should confer. However, what we call it is immaterial. Whether it is aligned with any preexisting social concepts is immaterial. What is material is, if we are going to say that one class of people gets these benefits but another does not, that we have a damned good reason why we should be discriminating. And being grossed out is not a reason.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 2:08:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 1:33:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/27/2013 1:32:00 PM, stubs wrote:
At 6/27/2013 1:26:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/27/2013 1:16:41 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
More new age hippie nonsense. "Jesus told us to love everyone = support same-sex marriage, dude!"

Fallacious appeal to ridicule. Jesus did tell you to love everyone. Do you even know what Christianity is?

Not to jump into your conversation, but Sovereign never disputed what you claimed Jesus said. He asked how loving everyone all of a sudden turns into support same sex marriage. Do you mind addressing that point specifically?

Sure, I will address it: it is a straw-man. I never said loving everyone leads to supporting same sex marriage. It leads to acceptance of somebody who is different.

Is it possible to accept someone who is different without approving of the actions of someone who is different?
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 2:15:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 2:02:59 PM, llamainmypocket wrote:


Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because it's wrong that gay people don't have a kind of union doesn't make changing the union of others against their will right.

That's an absurd point. gays being able to be married in the eyes of the government changes nothing about existing marriages. Unless you're trying to say straight people only get married because you could only marry the opposite sex?

Gays were already getting married (and, in fact, some marriages between men did occur in Rome, although it wasn't common). Gays are getting married right now. The only thing that changes is that their union is recognized. It does nothing to the marriage of the straight folks, any more than the fact that interfaith marriages are legal does anything to marriage in the eyes of the Catholic church, which has lot of archaic rules about it.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
sadolite
Posts: 8,839
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 2:19:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
In retrospect this is a blessing in disguise. We as a nation will now be allowed to self segregate. That is, if the states are left to decide this issue. I think it would be better for all in the long run not having this shoved down our throats by either side. This is a societal issue, not a legal issue. People who don't approve of gay marriage can go live in states that don't allow it and vice versa. But some how the pro gay marriage agenda would not even be happy with this. It must be shoved down your throat and you will have no say in the matter.
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%