Total Posts:147|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

NY makes gay marriage legal.

rogue
Posts: 2,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2011 1:23:17 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Wooohooo!!!!! Finally something positive in a time of hopelessness. I do not think they would have passed this unless most of the inhabitants of New York wanted this to be so. This gives me hope that reason will overturn religious fanaticism. Maybe secular humanism will gain popularity. Who knows?
Contradiction
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2011 3:33:48 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/25/2011 2:45:03 AM, Merda wrote:
Call me when Florida makes it legal.

In 2008, voters passed Proposition 2, which amended the state constitution.

...It also has a clause in it making it overturn proof (At least, to certain courts I would think) :P
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2011 3:41:50 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/25/2011 3:31:04 AM, Contradiction wrote:
This perturbed me greatly. After it happened, I spent a few hours engaging in multiple debates on Facebook.

Why? I just don't get. What is so bad about allowing homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2011 3:43:05 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/25/2011 2:47:44 AM, darkkermit wrote:
gay marriage isn't a religious issue.

RoyLatham is an atheist and is not in favor of gay marriage.

What is his reasoning, exactly?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Contradiction
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2011 3:44:22 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/25/2011 3:41:50 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 6/25/2011 3:31:04 AM, Contradiction wrote:
This perturbed me greatly. After it happened, I spent a few hours engaging in multiple debates on Facebook.

Why? I just don't get. What is so bad about allowing homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals?

I don't really want to get into a debate now, but suffice to say that it's not in line with what marriage is. Before one says that one has a right to X, you have to define X.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2011 3:48:02 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/25/2011 3:44:22 AM, Contradiction wrote:
At 6/25/2011 3:41:50 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 6/25/2011 3:31:04 AM, Contradiction wrote:
This perturbed me greatly. After it happened, I spent a few hours engaging in multiple debates on Facebook.

Why? I just don't get. What is so bad about allowing homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals?

I don't really want to get into a debate now, but suffice to say that it's not in line with what marriage is. Before one says that one has a right to X, you have to define X.

<sarcasm>That makes sense.</sarcasm>
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2011 3:59:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/25/2011 3:43:05 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 6/25/2011 2:47:44 AM, darkkermit wrote:
gay marriage isn't a religious issue.

RoyLatham is an atheist and is not in favor of gay marriage.

What is his reasoning, exactly?

He believes in Civil Unions, which would be the same rights as marriage. You'd have to ask him, because I wouldn't know his reasons.

My main argument was that the marriage controversy isn't about a 'a bunch of religious bigots' as the open topic heavily implied. It's more complex then that.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2011 9:51:26 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/25/2011 3:59:25 AM, darkkermit wrote:
He believes in Civil Unions, which would be the same rights as marriage. You'd have to ask him, because I wouldn't know his reasons.

This doesn't make sense for so many reasons. First of all, civil unions don't have anywhere near the same benefits as marriages. Second, that's such an insignificant position as all it does is appease religious people into thinking they have a monopoly on the term marriage. Like it or not, vernacular evolves and it's time we stop coddling the conservatives. While marriage may currently refer to civil unions sanctified in a religious ceremony, who is to say that certain tolerant religious groups wouldn't perform gay unions? Unitarian Universalists do. In that case what is the actual difference between marriage and gay marriage? Why can't we just call it marriage? Did I have breakfast today or did I have gay breakfast? Did I park my car this morning or did I gay park my car?

Not only that, but laws pertaining to marriage that protect people's rights have occurred all throughout history. In the 60s you couldn't have interracial marriage. In the 80s it was perfectly legal for a man to rape his wife. Any anti-gay marriage position is ignorant, period. Even the libertarians who say they are against all legal marriage are full of sh!t. Not only is every libertarian here very likely to get married thus a giant hypocrite, but someone like Ragnar says he is okay with State benefits because he feels it's "getting some of his taxes back" that was taken from him in the first place. Well gay people pay taxes too. To say only people who engage in straight relationships deserve their taxes back via breaks is bs. I have yet to here even one remotely decent argument against gay marriage, and I HIGHLY doubt Roy's reasoning is any better. In fact I'm pretty damn near sure of it.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2011 10:05:09 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/25/2011 3:59:25 AM, darkkermit wrote:
My main argument was that the marriage controversy isn't about a 'a bunch of religious bigots' as the open topic heavily implied. It's more complex then that.

Haha keep telling yourself that. Opponents might not be religious bigots, but they're bigots.
President of DDO
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2011 10:49:17 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/25/2011 3:59:25 AM, darkkermit wrote:
My main argument was that the marriage controversy isn't about a 'a bunch of religious bigots' as the open topic heavily implied. It's more complex then that.

It's almost always religious people who argue against it... Often for lightly veiled religious reasons..

Sometimes religious people will try to develop a 'secular'/"humanist"-friendly argument about how Children Just NEED to have the influence of a "Father" and a "Mother"...

but that argument is shaky to begin with.. doesn't account for Gally-guys, and the Butch-ladies (who may very much fulfill that role anywho.. who knows?)

and there are plenty of other points to bring up like the number of orphans stuck jumping around shitty foster care systems with shitty foster care schemers or whatnot.. what's worse?

Though Religious people might try to make Non-religious arguments Almost no atheists are against giving gays equal rights in this regard.. b/c those non-religious arguments just suck.

Also, if roylatham would wish Civil Unions with all the same benefits... there's really no point in bringing him up.. it's the same. If he would want ALL such relationships (gay or straight) termed "civil unions".. then that makes sense..
if he would just use it to describe gay ones... then that's either trying to cut an easier compromise with the Religious, at the expense of gays feelings/condoned social outcasting... or he's just got nothing behind his arguments in that regard.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2011 10:53:31 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/25/2011 9:51:26 AM, Danielle wrote:
Did I have breakfast today or did I have gay breakfast?

I'd say that probably depends on what you had for breakfast.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2011 1:26:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/25/2011 10:05:09 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 6/25/2011 3:59:25 AM, darkkermit wrote:
My main argument was that the marriage controversy isn't about a 'a bunch of religious bigots' as the open topic heavily implied. It's more complex then that.

Haha keep telling yourself that. Opponents might not be religious bigots, but they're bigots.

You really think Roy's a bigot? I don't know what his argument is, but It's really ridiculous to call him something he isn't, without positive proof.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2011 2:10:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/25/2011 1:26:18 PM, darkkermit wrote:
You really think Roy's a bigot? I don't know what his argument is, but It's really ridiculous to call him something he isn't, without positive proof.

I was going to say opponents are generally either bigots or hypocrites. If Roy were one of those I'd guess the latter. I don't have proof, but I can make assumptions or judgments about his beliefs the way you would likely make assumptions or judgments about someone who says they don't believe in gravity. As I said, I haven't come across any legitimate arguments against gay marriage, except for having marriage not be a government thing for ANY couples. To that I'd say DUH, but considering we all know damn well that hetero marriages sanctioned by the State do and will continue to exist, then to say gays do not deserve equal protection under the law is to support violating civil rights.
President of DDO
Justin_Chains
Posts: 623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2011 2:25:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It's funny how our culture accepts something that goes against the laws of nature.

The reproductive system tells us that's it's wrong. There is no more to be said. What else are we going to accept into our culture? What else are we going to teach our kids is ok and acceptable? If we teach our children that going against the laws of nature is acceptable, then there are going to be very dark times in our future.

I won't get too deeply into this... This site is loaded with gay people and I don't feel like fighting with everyone.

I say that we start introducing the idea of a nation with a network of small self sufficient communities who design their own social structure. If that were the case, then they could go have their gay communities and everyone is happy. All the gays from around the nation would give your communities a steady flow of new members, that way the problem of not being able to reproduce doesn't kill off your entire community after one generation.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2011 2:26:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/25/2011 2:25:01 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
It's funny how our culture accepts something that goes against the laws of nature.

The reproductive system tells us that's it's wrong. There is no more to be said. What else are we going to accept into our culture? What else are we going to teach our kids is ok and acceptable? If we teach our children that going against the laws of nature is acceptable, then there are going to be very dark times in our future.

I won't get too deeply into this... This site is loaded with gay people and I don't feel like fighting with everyone.

I say that we start introducing the idea of a nation with a network of small self sufficient communities who design their own social structure. If that were the case, then they could go have their gay communities and everyone is happy. All the gays from around the nation would give your communities a steady flow of new members, that way the problem of not being able to reproduce doesn't kill off your entire community after one generation.

Posts like this make baby Jesus cry.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2011 2:32:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/25/2011 2:25:01 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
It's funny how our culture accepts something that goes against the laws of nature.

Umm.. nature landed in gay people being gay..

how could it violate it's own rules? o.O

The reproductive system tells us that's it's wrong.

I've never heard it say any such thing...

and what should anyone care what It Thinks?

There is no more to be said. What else are we going to accept into our culture? What else are we going to teach our kids is ok and acceptable? If we teach our children that going against the laws of nature is acceptable, then there are going to be very dark times in our future.

laws like what? E=MC^2?? and stuff?

b/c I never learned in science class that Gay = Baddd!!

I won't get too deeply into this... This site is loaded with gay people and I don't feel like fighting with everyone.

I'm not gay.. but you're dumb.

I say that we start introducing the idea of a nation with a network of small self sufficient communities who design their own social structure. If that were the case, then they could go have their gay communities and everyone is happy. All the gays from around the nation would give your communities a steady flow of new members, that way the problem of not being able to reproduce doesn't kill off your entire community after one generation.

I have a feeling some of your "straight" communities would have gay kids.

If the existence of gays in a population killed of that pop in one generation.. we wouldn't exist right now.

and Gays seem to pop up everywhere... I think it's not only Genetic.. but hormonal in early development too ;)
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2011 2:32:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/25/2011 2:10:30 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 6/25/2011 1:26:18 PM, darkkermit wrote:
You really think Roy's a bigot? I don't know what his argument is, but It's really ridiculous to call him something he isn't, without positive proof.

I was going to say opponents are generally either bigots or hypocrites. If Roy were one of those I'd guess the latter. I don't have proof, but I can make assumptions or judgments about his beliefs the way you would likely make assumptions or judgments about someone who says they don't believe in gravity. As I said, I haven't come across any legitimate arguments against gay marriage, except for having marriage not be a government thing for ANY couples. To that I'd say DUH, but considering we all know damn well that hetero marriages sanctioned by the State do and will continue to exist, then to say gays do not deserve equal protection under the law is to support violating civil rights.

There are plenty of people who hate gays and lesbians and will deny them anything, some would deny them their life. However there are far more who don't hate us but are filled with head trash that's just been ingrained into our culture and our thinking. They don't see the same legitimacy in a gay relationship as they do a straight one, they don't think two gay men are capable of the same depth of love as a straight couple, and there is some inherent revulsion in gay sex. Except maybe for the latter, many gays and lesbians hold on to this deep down, especially older ones. Keep in mind these people don't hate gays and lesbians, but do think their relationships to be lesser than straight relationships, and I can't blame them for much of that thinking. However, it is in this very large class of people that gays and lesbians have the biggest problem, because many of them feel compassionate and all for gays and lesbians, but they don't think them equal to the point of being granted marriage, but many will be okay with civil unions as being more appropriate.

I've had the option to marry for some time now, but have opted away from it for simple reasons of self interest. Until it's a federal law, there is no point in getting married.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2011 2:41:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/25/2011 2:25:01 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
It's funny how our culture accepts something that goes against the laws of nature.

Dolphins sometimes have blowhole sex. Where are your laws of nature there?
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2011 2:49:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/25/2011 2:32:51 PM, innomen wrote:
There are plenty of people who hate gays and lesbians and will deny them anything, some would deny them their life. However there are far more who don't hate us but are filled with head trash that's just been ingrained into our culture and our thinking. They don't see the same legitimacy in a gay relationship as they do a straight one, they don't think two gay men are capable of the same depth of love as a straight couple, and there is some inherent revulsion in gay sex.

Yes. What you described are called bigots.

Except maybe for the latter, many gays and lesbians hold on to this deep down, especially older ones. Keep in mind these people don't hate gays and lesbians, but do think their relationships to be lesser than straight relationships, and I can't blame them for much of that thinking.

Do you blame people who think that blacks are people but lesser people? As in 3/5 a person? What if the government decided to only tax black people - would that be fair? If the majority of people were repulsed by black skin (and that used to be the case), are black people not deserving of equal protection and privileges under the law because of that fact? I understand being a product of your environment, but I think you're naive to "not blame them" for their thinking to a degree.

However, it is in this very large class of people that gays and lesbians have the biggest problem, because many of them feel compassionate and all for gays and lesbians, but they don't think them equal to the point of being granted marriage, but many will be okay with civil unions as being more appropriate.

Civil unions grant nowhere near the protection of marriages, and I already explained why it makes absolutely no sense to just call equal civil unions marriage. When we changed marriage laws over the course of history to prevent legally raping your wife, or allowing your wife to own property, or to allow you to marry a wife of a different race, did we say we needed to use a different term but marriage? No.

I've had the option to marry for some time now, but have opted away from it for simple reasons of self interest. Until it's a federal law, there is no point in getting married.

Exactly.
President of DDO
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2011 2:53:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/25/2011 2:25:01 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
It's funny how our culture accepts something that goes against the laws of nature.

This quote is funny coming from someone who can't understand the laws of nature and constantly tries to prove them wrong, while being very unscientific in the process. See signature.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2011 2:57:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/25/2011 2:49:04 PM, Danielle wrote:
Do you blame people who think that blacks are people but lesser people? As in 3/5 a person?

No. Just no. Stop right there. Nobody ever actually said that blacks are 3/5 of a person. The Southerners actually wanted slaves to count completely for representation; does this make them any better than the Northerners who didn't want slaves to count for representation at all? Let's just squash this myth right here before it spreads any further.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2011 3:00:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/25/2011 2:49:04 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 6/25/2011 2:32:51 PM, innomen wrote:
There are plenty of people who hate gays and lesbians and will deny them anything, some would deny them their life. However there are far more who don't hate us but are filled with head trash that's just been ingrained into our culture and our thinking. They don't see the same legitimacy in a gay relationship as they do a straight one, they don't think two gay men are capable of the same depth of love as a straight couple, and there is some inherent revulsion in gay sex.

Yes. What you described are called bigots.

I'm not saying that it's not bigotry, but it's not hatred.
Except maybe for the latter, many gays and lesbians hold on to this deep down, especially older ones. Keep in mind these people don't hate gays and lesbians, but do think their relationships to be lesser than straight relationships, and I can't blame them for much of that thinking.


Do you blame people who think that blacks are people but lesser people? As in 3/5 a person? What if the government decided to only tax black people - would that be fair? If the majority of people were repulsed by black skin (and that used to be the case), are black people not deserving of equal protection and privileges under the law because of that fact? I understand being a product of your environment, but I think you're naive to "not blame them" for their thinking to a degree.

Actually i don't. I don't like it, and i don't agree with it, but i had a grandmother who was a sweet woman who was brought up to think that black people were less than. I can understand her, and i cannot blame her for not bucking up against what she held as normal thinking.
However, it is in this very large class of people that gays and lesbians have the biggest problem, because many of them feel compassionate and all for gays and lesbians, but they don't think them equal to the point of being granted marriage, but many will be okay with civil unions as being more appropriate.

Civil unions grant nowhere near the protection of marriages, and I already explained why it makes absolutely no sense to just call equal civil unions marriage. When we changed marriage laws over the course of history to prevent legally raping your wife, or allowing your wife to own property, or to allow you to marry a wife of a different race, did we say we needed to use a different term but marriage? No.

I'm not defending it, just explaining it. I'd be okay with there being secular unions for everyone (don't really care what you call it), and let religion do whatever they want. I don't even know why gov't needs to be in the marriage business anyway.

I've had the option to marry for some time now, but have opted away from it for simple reasons of self interest. Until it's a federal law, there is no point in getting married.

Exactly.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2011 3:06:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/25/2011 2:57:02 PM, mongeese wrote:
No. Just no. Stop right there. Nobody ever actually said that blacks are 3/5 of a person. The Southerners actually wanted slaves to count completely for representation; does this make them any better than the Northerners who didn't want slaves to count for representation at all? Let's just squash this myth right here before it spreads any further.

Nobody said that's what I was referring to. I said what if some people thought blacks were worth 3/5 a person (as in less than a white person; less than deserving of the same privileges, such as drinking from the same water fountain as a white person). Blacks were and often still are seen as human but not equal. The 3/5 reference was just for effect, but congratulations on proving you took American History like everyone else does in high school by stating this fact. However you did absolutely nothing to disprove or remotely argue against my overall point: that not supporting gay marriage is absolutely ridiculous. Also, any libertarian who gets married, which I'm assuming the vast majority do, are all hypocrites... especially if they are against legalizing marriage for gay couples and get one.
President of DDO