Total Posts:139|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Same sex marriage

Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2013 9:57:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
So you don't like gays, or that whole homosexuality business. Ok fair enough.

No one is asking you to enter into a same sex marriage, nor it is being asked that anyone be forced into a same sex marriage or we replace heterosexual marriages with same sex marriages.

There are consenting adults of the same gender who want to marry one another. So how about you support allowing two consenting adults marry even if you dis-agree with it.

Or is that just crazy talk ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
bulproof
Posts: 25,203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2013 10:53:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/29/2013 9:57:28 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
So you don't like gays, or that whole homosexuality business. Ok fair enough.

No one is asking you to enter into a same sex marriage, nor it is being asked that anyone be forced into a same sex marriage or we replace heterosexual marriages with same sex marriages.

There are consenting adults of the same gender who want to marry one another. So how about you support allowing two consenting adults marry even if you dis-agree with it.

Or is that just crazy talk ?

What? You mean be a christian about it? pfffft
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Jack212
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2013 11:54:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/29/2013 9:57:28 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
So you don't like gays, or that whole homosexuality business. Ok fair enough.

No one is asking you to enter into a same sex marriage, nor it is being asked that anyone be forced into a same sex marriage or we replace heterosexual marriages with same sex marriages.

There are consenting adults of the same gender who want to marry one another. So how about you support allowing two consenting adults marry even if you dis-agree with it.

Or is that just crazy talk ?

This isn't about consent or adults. It's about a fundamental disagreement on what constitutes "marriage". The simple solution is to include synonymous terms that mean exactly the same as "marriage" in a legal sense, but don't have to in a cultural sense. People can pick and choose which of the terms the apply to themselves.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 12:02:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/29/2013 11:54:56 PM, Jack212 wrote:
At 9/29/2013 9:57:28 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
So you don't like gays, or that whole homosexuality business. Ok fair enough.

No one is asking you to enter into a same sex marriage, nor it is being asked that anyone be forced into a same sex marriage or we replace heterosexual marriages with same sex marriages.

There are consenting adults of the same gender who want to marry one another. So how about you support allowing two consenting adults marry even if you dis-agree with it.

Or is that just crazy talk ?

This isn't about consent or adults. It's about a fundamental disagreement on what constitutes "marriage". The simple solution is to include synonymous terms that mean exactly the same as "marriage" in a legal sense, but don't have to in a cultural sense. People can pick and choose which of the terms the apply to themselves.

I think what you are getting at is civil unions. They are the exact same as marriage.................only we call it something different ?

At that point it is just semantics.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Jack212
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 12:06:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 12:02:38 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:

I think what you are getting at is civil unions. They are the exact same as marriage.................only we call it something different ?

At that point it is just semantics.

They should be the same, but usually aren't. If they were, then gay people can call themselves "married", and homophobes can choose not to use that term, and nobody would be incorrect. The fact that it's semantics is kind of the point.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 12:09:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 12:06:03 AM, Jack212 wrote:
At 9/30/2013 12:02:38 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:

I think what you are getting at is civil unions. They are the exact same as marriage.................only we call it something different ?

At that point it is just semantics.

They should be the same, but usually aren't. If they were, then gay people can call themselves "married", and homophobes can choose not to use that term, and nobody would be incorrect. The fact that it's semantics is kind of the point.

No, to a homophobe two people of the same sex referring to themselves as "married" is unacceptable. It ain't a "real" marriage in their book.

That's the point of my civil union comment. If you have something which give all the benefits of a marriage and call it a civil union, it's the same........except in name.

As I said at that point it's just semantics.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Jack212
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 12:55:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 12:09:54 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:

No, to a homophobe two people of the same sex referring to themselves as "married" is unacceptable. It ain't a "real" marriage in their book.

Yes, and if the terms "marriage" and "civil union" carry the same legal weight, it doesn't matter what people call themselves. If that homophobe refuses to call you "married" after you've introduced yourselves that way, that's his problem.

I don't see what we're disagreeing on here.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 1:35:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/29/2013 9:57:28 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
So you don't like gays, or that whole homosexuality business. Ok fair enough.

Perhaps I do, perhaps I don't. Not really relevant anyways.

No one is asking you to enter into a same sex marriage, nor it is being asked that anyone be forced into a same sex marriage or we replace heterosexual marriages with same sex marriages.

What is being asked by supporters of same-sex "marriage" is that we adopt a view of marriage which is not at all distinguishable to that of a government registry of friendships. Many of us think that (a) this is not, in fact, what marriage is, and (b) that this is of absolutely no compelling interest to the state or the public good.

There are consenting adults of the same gender who want to marry one another. So how about you support allowing two consenting adults marry even if you dis-agree with it.

That, my friend, is just petty question-begging buffoonery. You're simply assuming it to be true that marriage just is people having fuzzy feelings for one another when opponents of same-sex "marriage" will obviously disagree.

Or is that just crazy talk ?

Yeah
bulproof
Posts: 25,203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 3:20:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 1:35:09 AM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 9/29/2013 9:57:28 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
So you don't like gays, or that whole homosexuality business. Ok fair enough.

Perhaps I do, perhaps I don't. Not really relevant anyways.

No one is asking you to enter into a same sex marriage, nor it is being asked that anyone be forced into a same sex marriage or we replace heterosexual marriages with same sex marriages.

What is being asked by supporters of same-sex "marriage" is that we adopt a view of marriage which is not at all distinguishable to that of a government registry of friendships. Many of us think that (a) this is not, in fact, what marriage is, and (b) that this is of absolutely no compelling interest to the state or the public good.

There are consenting adults of the same gender who want to marry one another. So how about you support allowing two consenting adults marry even if you dis-agree with it.

That, my friend, is just petty question-begging buffoonery. You're simply assuming it to be true that marriage just is people having fuzzy feelings for one another when opponents of same-sex "marriage" will obviously disagree.

Or is that just crazy talk ?

Yeah
40yrs ago I married the woman I love and for that reason only, if you want to marry for money or procreation or because your invisible friend told you to or any other reason then what gives you the right to use the same word "marriage" as I do when you don't ascribe to the meaning of "marriage" that I do. Find your own name and don't degrade and besmirch the term that is important to me.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 3:56:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 1:35:09 AM, SovereignDream wrote:
What is being asked by supporters of same-sex "marriage" is that we adopt a view of marriage which is not at all distinguishable to that of a government registry of friendships. Many of us think that (a) this is not, in fact, what marriage is, and (b) that this is of absolutely no compelling interest to the state or the public good.

You either need to have less sex with your friends or more sex with your wife.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 5:15:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 1:35:09 AM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 9/29/2013 9:57:28 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
So you don't like gays, or that whole homosexuality business. Ok fair enough.

Perhaps I do, perhaps I don't. Not really relevant anyways.

No one is asking you to enter into a same sex marriage, nor it is being asked that anyone be forced into a same sex marriage or we replace heterosexual marriages with same sex marriages.

What is being asked by supporters of same-sex "marriage" is that we adopt a view of marriage which is not at all distinguishable to that of a government registry of friendships. Many of us think that (a) this is not, in fact, what marriage is, and (b) that this is of absolutely no compelling interest to the state or the public good.

A) What is being asked of by anti same sex marriage advocates is that because they don't regard any marriage that isn't a man and woman we should deny marriage to same sex couples.

B) That there is a compelling interest to recognize same sex marriage. One reason being is that we allow people to do what they want, unless there is a good reason to disallow it. Freedom/liberty. And if something is denied and there is no good reason then we remove that denial.


There are consenting adults of the same gender who want to marry one another. So how about you support allowing two consenting adults marry even if you dis-agree with it.

That, my friend, is just petty question-begging buffoonery. You're simply assuming it to be true that marriage just is people having fuzzy feelings for one another when opponents of same-sex "marriage" will obviously disagree.

Nope, I am not making that assumption. So once again, how about you support allowing two consenting adults marry even if you dis-agree with it.


Or is that just crazy talk ?

Yeah
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 7:22:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/29/2013 11:54:56 PM, Jack212 wrote:
At 9/29/2013 9:57:28 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
So you don't like gays, or that whole homosexuality business. Ok fair enough.

No one is asking you to enter into a same sex marriage, nor it is being asked that anyone be forced into a same sex marriage or we replace heterosexual marriages with same sex marriages.

There are consenting adults of the same gender who want to marry one another. So how about you support allowing two consenting adults marry even if you dis-agree with it.

Or is that just crazy talk ?

This isn't about consent or adults. It's about a fundamental disagreement on what constitutes "marriage".

No it isn't. Nothing is changing the definition of marriage. From a legal standpoint there has only even been one definition of marriage: "two people that have a marriage license issued by the state." That's it. The point of contention is who the state allows to have these licenses.

The simple solution is to include synonymous terms that mean exactly the same as "marriage" in a legal sense, but don't have to in a cultural sense. People can pick and choose which of the terms the apply to themselves.

Uh. What? The problem is, same sex couples want the marriage one but stupid, backward conservatives don't want them to have it. The simple solution is to have one term. That's it. One term is more simple than two terms. Herp.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 7:24:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 1:35:09 AM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 9/29/2013 9:57:28 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
So you don't like gays, or that whole homosexuality business. Ok fair enough.

Perhaps I do, perhaps I don't. Not really relevant anyways.

No one is asking you to enter into a same sex marriage, nor it is being asked that anyone be forced into a same sex marriage or we replace heterosexual marriages with same sex marriages.

What is being asked by supporters of same-sex "marriage" is that we adopt a view of marriage which is not at all distinguishable to that of a government registry of friendships.

No, what is being asked by supporters of SSM is that the government not discriminate against them regarding marriage. This equivocation of SSM as mere friendship is stupid and unfounded.

Many of us think that (a) this is not, in fact, what marriage is, and (b) that this is of absolutely no compelling interest to the state or the public good.

A) is irrelevant and B) is just too fvcking bad. The government has decided to offer this status, so it has to follow its own rules regarding discrimination. If it doesn't discriminate against other childless couples then it can't constitutionally discriminate against SSM simple because of their gender.

There are consenting adults of the same gender who want to marry one another. So how about you support allowing two consenting adults marry even if you dis-agree with it.

That, my friend, is just petty question-begging buffoonery. You're simply assuming it to be true that marriage just is people having fuzzy feelings for one another when opponents of same-sex "marriage" will obviously disagree.

Or is that just crazy talk ?

Yeah
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 7:25:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 3:56:24 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 9/30/2013 1:35:09 AM, SovereignDream wrote:
What is being asked by supporters of same-sex "marriage" is that we adopt a view of marriage which is not at all distinguishable to that of a government registry of friendships. Many of us think that (a) this is not, in fact, what marriage is, and (b) that this is of absolutely no compelling interest to the state or the public good.

You either need to have less sex with your friends or more sex with your wife.

Congratulations! You just won the internet!
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 8:05:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 7:25:21 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 9/30/2013 3:56:24 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 9/30/2013 1:35:09 AM, SovereignDream wrote:
What is being asked by supporters of same-sex "marriage" is that we adopt a view of marriage which is not at all distinguishable to that of a government registry of friendships. Many of us think that (a) this is not, in fact, what marriage is, and (b) that this is of absolutely no compelling interest to the state or the public good.

You either need to have less sex with your friends or more sex with your wife.

Congratulations! You just won the internet!

deep bow

Although, without wanting to sound churlish, could I perhaps have a prize that isn't so teeming with idiots and pictures of cats?
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 8:31:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Could've sworn the OP is assuming that heterosexuality is equal to homosexuality.

And lol @graincruncher's comment.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 8:41:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 8:31:19 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Could've sworn the OP is assuming that heterosexuality is equal to homosexuality.

I don't even see how this is coherent. What does it mean for two sexualities to be "equal?"


And lol @graincruncher's comment.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 8:51:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 8:41:10 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 9/30/2013 8:31:19 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Could've sworn the OP is assuming that heterosexuality is equal to homosexuality.

I don't even see how this is coherent. What does it mean for two sexualities to be "equal?"

They would be equal if homosexuals had a unique physiology that is compatible with their sexual activities.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 9:13:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 8:51:36 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 9/30/2013 8:41:10 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 9/30/2013 8:31:19 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Could've sworn the OP is assuming that heterosexuality is equal to homosexuality.

I don't even see how this is coherent. What does it mean for two sexualities to be "equal?"

They would be equal if homosexuals had a unique physiology that is compatible with their sexual activities.

First, define "compatible" in this context.
Second, why does government acceptance of SSM require this assumption as you are using it?
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 9:24:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 9:13:14 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 9/30/2013 8:51:36 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 9/30/2013 8:41:10 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 9/30/2013 8:31:19 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Could've sworn the OP is assuming that heterosexuality is equal to homosexuality.

I don't even see how this is coherent. What does it mean for two sexualities to be "equal?"

They would be equal if homosexuals had a unique physiology that is compatible with their sexual activities.

First, define "compatible" in this context.

We are born with a reproductive system that is heterosexual. It's function and design requires two individuals of opposite sexes.
Homosexuality would be in clear contradiction with the function and design of the reproductive system of our heterosexual bodies. Therefore, it is not compatible with human physiology.

Second, why does government acceptance of SSM require this assumption as you are using it?

If I am not mistaken, the OP made the request of homosexuality being treated equally with heterosexuality. However, as demonstrated above, they are not equal and homosexuality cannot be considered a third or a fourth gender.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 9:28:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 9:24:25 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 9/30/2013 9:13:14 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 9/30/2013 8:51:36 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 9/30/2013 8:41:10 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 9/30/2013 8:31:19 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Could've sworn the OP is assuming that heterosexuality is equal to homosexuality.

I don't even see how this is coherent. What does it mean for two sexualities to be "equal?"

They would be equal if homosexuals had a unique physiology that is compatible with their sexual activities.

First, define "compatible" in this context.

We are born with a reproductive system that is heterosexual. It's function and design requires two individuals of opposite sexes.
Homosexuality would be in clear contradiction with the function and design of the reproductive system of our heterosexual bodies. Therefore, it is not compatible with human physiology.

Except a LOT (A LOT) of heterosexual "sexual activity" is not compatible with heterosexual physiology. Why do you suddenly care about this compatibility when it comes to SSM?

Second, why does government acceptance of SSM require this assumption as you are using it?

If I am not mistaken, the OP made the request of homosexuality being treated equally with heterosexuality. However, as demonstrated above, they are not equal and homosexuality cannot be considered a third or a fourth gender.

This doesn't answer the question. Why does the fact that homosexuals engage in sexual activity that is "incompatible" (as you define it) mean they shouldn't be afforded the same rights as everyone else?
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 9:35:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Tbh, with arguments like that I don't really think there's a lot for the pro-SSM marriage side of things to worry about. Dragonfang; have you actually stopped to consider what you're actually saying, at all?

Let me stop you there - that was a rhetorical question. No-one is suggesting a new gender here. I've literally never seen anyone on suggest such total twaddle before. Secondly, you are implicitly defining marriage based on procreative capacity and argument from design, neither of which are in fact anything to do with anything at all. Marriage is a human construct that it is solely within the power of humans to define and regulate. You dispute this? That's fine. All you have to do is show that it isn't such a construct and we therefore are bound by external definitions which we must obey. If marriage has an objective meaning, you need only present evidence of this objectivity and your argument will be accepted.

So... off you pop. You seem pretty certain you're right, so unless you're just blowing a lot of hot air - well, some sort of gas, at any rate - then it shouldn't be difficult to provide evidence for your position.
bulproof
Posts: 25,203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 9:39:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 9:24:25 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 9/30/2013 9:13:14 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 9/30/2013 8:51:36 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 9/30/2013 8:41:10 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 9/30/2013 8:31:19 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Could've sworn the OP is assuming that heterosexuality is equal to homosexuality.

I don't even see how this is coherent. What does it mean for two sexualities to be "equal?"

They would be equal if homosexuals had a unique physiology that is compatible with their sexual activities.

First, define "compatible" in this context.

We are born with a reproductive system that is heterosexual. It's function and design requires two individuals of opposite sexes.
Homosexuality would be in clear contradiction with the function and design of the reproductive system of our heterosexual bodies. Therefore, it is not compatible with human physiology.

Second, why does government acceptance of SSM require this assumption as you are using it?

If I am not mistaken, the OP made the request of homosexuality being treated equally with heterosexuality. However, as demonstrated above, they are not equal and homosexuality cannot be considered a third or a fourth gender.
Didn't you read my post?
Are you brain dead?
My MARRIAGE is my MARRIAGE.
Do you really wanna fvck with that?
No you don't, unless you are looking for an entry to hell.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
bulproof
Posts: 25,203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 9:44:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 8:31:19 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Could've sworn the OP is assuming that heterosexuality is equal to homosexuality.

And lol @graincruncher's comment.
Well yep little child, they both be the same. For thems that believe in a skydaddy then it's how the skydaddy made 'em. For them what believes in evolution is their genes that made 'em.
For the HATEFUL, tell 'em to go fvck 'em selves.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 9:50:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 9:28:40 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 9/30/2013 9:24:25 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 9/30/2013 9:13:14 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 9/30/2013 8:51:36 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 9/30/2013 8:41:10 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 9/30/2013 8:31:19 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Could've sworn the OP is assuming that heterosexuality is equal to homosexuality.

I don't even see how this is coherent. What does it mean for two sexualities to be "equal?"

They would be equal if homosexuals had a unique physiology that is compatible with their sexual activities.

First, define "compatible" in this context.

We are born with a reproductive system that is heterosexual. It's function and design requires two individuals of opposite sexes.
Homosexuality would be in clear contradiction with the function and design of the reproductive system of our heterosexual bodies. Therefore, it is not compatible with human physiology.

Except a LOT (A LOT) of heterosexual "sexual activity" is not compatible with heterosexual physiology. Why do you suddenly care about this compatibility when it comes to SSM?


Heterosexual sexual desires are rooted within our heterosexual design, therefore they are compatible.
This by itself doesn't point superiority, but it demonstrates that homosexuality is different from heterosexuality.

Second, why does government acceptance of SSM require this assumption as you are using it?

If I am not mistaken, the OP made the request of homosexuality being treated equally with heterosexuality. However, as demonstrated above, they are not equal and homosexuality cannot be considered a third or a fourth gender.

This doesn't answer the question. Why does the fact that homosexuals engage in sexual activity that is "incompatible" (as you define it) mean they shouldn't be afforded the same rights as everyone else?

They have the same rights and duties as everyone else. If it is not allowed to marry someone from the same sex, all citizens are subject to that law. If it is allowed to marry someone from the same sex, everyone is subject to that law.
Unless you are making homosexuality equal to heterosexuality, which is addressed above.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 9:54:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 9:50:28 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 9/30/2013 9:28:40 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 9/30/2013 9:24:25 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 9/30/2013 9:13:14 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 9/30/2013 8:51:36 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 9/30/2013 8:41:10 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 9/30/2013 8:31:19 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Could've sworn the OP is assuming that heterosexuality is equal to homosexuality.

I don't even see how this is coherent. What does it mean for two sexualities to be "equal?"

They would be equal if homosexuals had a unique physiology that is compatible with their sexual activities.

First, define "compatible" in this context.

We are born with a reproductive system that is heterosexual. It's function and design requires two individuals of opposite sexes.
Homosexuality would be in clear contradiction with the function and design of the reproductive system of our heterosexual bodies. Therefore, it is not compatible with human physiology.

Except a LOT (A LOT) of heterosexual "sexual activity" is not compatible with heterosexual physiology. Why do you suddenly care about this compatibility when it comes to SSM?


Heterosexual sexual desires are rooted within our heterosexual design, therefore they are compatible.

That doesn't answer the question. You are defining equality based on action, not intention/desire. So why don't you care about heterosexuals engaging in incompatible behavior?

This by itself doesn't point superiority, but it demonstrates that homosexuality is different from heterosexuality.

No sh1t. No one is arguing that they're identical. The argument is whether or not those differences are a valid basis on which we can/should discriminate, legally.

Second, why does government acceptance of SSM require this assumption as you are using it?

If I am not mistaken, the OP made the request of homosexuality being treated equally with heterosexuality. However, as demonstrated above, they are not equal and homosexuality cannot be considered a third or a fourth gender.

This doesn't answer the question. Why does the fact that homosexuals engage in sexual activity that is "incompatible" (as you define it) mean they shouldn't be afforded the same rights as everyone else?

They have the same rights and duties as everyone else.

No they don't, if they did, then we wouldn't be talking about it.

If it is not allowed to marry someone from the same sex, all citizens are subject to that law. If it is allowed to marry someone from the same sex, everyone is subject to that law.

Agreed. The problem is, it can and should be allowed, but some states (and until recently, the federal government) weren't abiding by the rules. That's the problem.

Unless you are making homosexuality equal to heterosexuality, which is addressed above.

Again, you're not answering the question. What does this bizarre "equality" concept have to do with the law?
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 9:54:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 9:35:53 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
Tbh, with arguments like that I don't really think there's a lot for the pro-SSM marriage side of things to worry about. Dragonfang; have you actually stopped to consider what you're actually saying, at all?

Let me stop you there - that was a rhetorical question. No-one is suggesting a new gender here. I've literally never seen anyone on suggest such total twaddle before. Secondly, you are implicitly defining marriage based on procreative capacity and argument from design, neither of which are in fact anything to do with anything at all. Marriage is a human construct that it is solely within the power of humans to define and regulate. You dispute this? That's fine. All you have to do is show that it isn't such a construct and we therefore are bound by external definitions which we must obey. If marriage has an objective meaning, you need only present evidence of this objectivity and your argument will be accepted.

So... off you pop. You seem pretty certain you're right, so unless you're just blowing a lot of hot air - well, some sort of gas, at any rate - then it shouldn't be difficult to provide evidence for your position.

That was simplification for the equality claim. Do you have any alternative explanation of that claim?
So everything is relative except relativism? What stops me from changing the definition back?
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 10:16:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 9:54:03 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 9/30/2013 9:50:28 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 9/30/2013 9:28:40 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 9/30/2013 9:24:25 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 9/30/2013 9:13:14 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 9/30/2013 8:51:36 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 9/30/2013 8:41:10 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 9/30/2013 8:31:19 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Could've sworn the OP is assuming that heterosexuality is equal to homosexuality.

I don't even see how this is coherent. What does it mean for two sexualities to be "equal?"

They would be equal if homosexuals had a unique physiology that is compatible with their sexual activities.

First, define "compatible" in this context.

We are born with a reproductive system that is heterosexual. It's function and design requires two individuals of opposite sexes.
Homosexuality would be in clear contradiction with the function and design of the reproductive system of our heterosexual bodies. Therefore, it is not compatible with human physiology.

Except a LOT (A LOT) of heterosexual "sexual activity" is not compatible with heterosexual physiology. Why do you suddenly care about this compatibility when it comes to SSM?


Heterosexual sexual desires are rooted within our heterosexual design, therefore they are compatible.

That doesn't answer the question. You are defining equality based on action, not intention/desire. So why don't you care about heterosexuals engaging in incompatible behavior?


Show how they are incompatible. We have sexual feelings because of our heterosexual design, expressing them in a heterosexual relation would be self-evidently normal and compatible.

This by itself doesn't point superiority, but it demonstrates that homosexuality is different from heterosexuality.

No sh1t. No one is arguing that they're identical. The argument is whether or not those differences are a valid basis on which we can/should discriminate, legally.


Not treating them equally is not irrational discrimination for they are not equal.

Second, why does government acceptance of SSM require this assumption as you are using it?

If I am not mistaken, the OP made the request of homosexuality being treated equally with heterosexuality. However, as demonstrated above, they are not equal and homosexuality cannot be considered a third or a fourth gender.

This doesn't answer the question. Why does the fact that homosexuals engage in sexual activity that is "incompatible" (as you define it) mean they shouldn't be afforded the same rights as everyone else?

They have the same rights and duties as everyone else.

No they don't, if they did, then we wouldn't be talking about it.


So they are forced to sit at the back of the buses?
They go to segregated schools, restrooms, etc... ?
They are denied service at hospitals, police stations, etc... ?
Were they hunted, enslaved, or placed in zoos?

Anything along those lines?

If it is not allowed to marry someone from the same sex, all citizens are subject to that law. If it is allowed to marry someone from the same sex, everyone is subject to that law.

Agreed. The problem is, it can and should be allowed, but some states (and until recently, the federal government) weren't abiding by the rules. That's the problem.

Why?

Unless you are making homosexuality equal to heterosexuality, which is addressed above.

Again, you're not answering the question. What does this bizarre "equality" concept have to do with the law?

By something not being equal to something else, it would make no sense to treat them equally.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 10:47:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 10:16:49 AM, Dragonfang wrote:

First, define "compatible" in this context.

We are born with a reproductive system that is heterosexual. It's function and design requires two individuals of opposite sexes.
Homosexuality would be in clear contradiction with the function and design of the reproductive system of our heterosexual bodies. Therefore, it is not compatible with human physiology.

Except a LOT (A LOT) of heterosexual "sexual activity" is not compatible with heterosexual physiology. Why do you suddenly care about this compatibility when it comes to SSM?


Heterosexual sexual desires are rooted within our heterosexual design, therefore they are compatible.

That doesn't answer the question. You are defining equality based on action, not intention/desire. So why don't you care about heterosexuals engaging in incompatible behavior?


Show how they are incompatible. We have sexual feelings because of our heterosexual design, expressing them in a heterosexual relation would be self-evidently normal and compatible.

You're defining compatibility based on reproduction. Heterosexuals engage in lots of sexual behavior that is not related to reproduction. This is the internet, I'm sure you can find lots of videos to attest to that fact.

This by itself doesn't point superiority, but it demonstrates that homosexuality is different from heterosexuality.

No sh1t. No one is arguing that they're identical. The argument is whether or not those differences are a valid basis on which we can/should discriminate, legally.


Not treating them equally is not irrational discrimination for they are not equal.

For our given style of government, it is. The status quo is equal treatment. Now, what is the basis on why we should discriminate?

Second, why does government acceptance of SSM require this assumption as you are using it?

If I am not mistaken, the OP made the request of homosexuality being treated equally with heterosexuality. However, as demonstrated above, they are not equal and homosexuality cannot be considered a third or a fourth gender.

This doesn't answer the question. Why does the fact that homosexuals engage in sexual activity that is "incompatible" (as you define it) mean they shouldn't be afforded the same rights as everyone else?

They have the same rights and duties as everyone else.

No they don't, if they did, then we wouldn't be talking about it.


So they are forced to sit at the back of the buses?
They go to segregated schools, restrooms, etc... ?
They are denied service at hospitals, police stations, etc... ?
Were they hunted, enslaved, or placed in zoos?

Anything along those lines?

Yes:
DOMA
Don't ask don't tell.
Criminalization of sodomy.
Employment discrimination

If it is not allowed to marry someone from the same sex, all citizens are subject to that law. If it is allowed to marry someone from the same sex, everyone is subject to that law.

Agreed. The problem is, it can and should be allowed, but some states (and until recently, the federal government) weren't abiding by the rules. That's the problem.

Why?

Uh, what? Are you asking why it's a problem the government isn't following the law?

Unless you are making homosexuality equal to heterosexuality, which is addressed above.

Again, you're not answering the question. What does this bizarre "equality" concept have to do with the law?

By something not being equal to something else, it would make no sense to treat them equally.

This "equality" concept of yours is bizarre and is not a basis for making law. The government says nothing about reproductive acts when it comes to marriage, so it's not a factor.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 10:57:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 9:54:17 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
That was simplification for the equality claim. Do you have any alternative explanation of that claim?
So everything is relative except relativism? What stops me from changing the definition back?

That was not a simplification of anything at all, it was merely a request that you back-up your assertions with evidence or stop making them. I didn't say anything about relativism and if you think the way you use a word has the power to dictate how everyone else uses the word, you're deluded. Sure you could change it back, feel free. Won't make the blindest bit of difference if enough other people disagree, though.

The irony of this objective definition issue being that it is with regard to gay marriage. Are you against happy marriage? I only ask because I just changed the definition of 'gay' back to that.

So, in summary, provide evidence or pipe down on the "my argument is obvious and reasonable" front. Because, until you present evidence, it isn't.