Total Posts:6|Showing Posts:1-6
Jump to topic:

Jim Spiegel Gay Marriage

seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 9:43:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Jim Spiegel's argument against gay marriage is essentially:

1. Heterosexual union is the indispensable means by which humans come into existence and therefore has special social value (indeed, the greatest possible social value because it is the first precondition for society).

2. The indispensable means by which something of special social value can occur itself has special value.

3. What has special value to human society deserves special social recognition and sanction.

4. Civil ordinances which recognize gay marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual unions.

5. To deny the special social value of what has special social value is unjust.

6. Therefore, gay marriage is unjust.

I have seen Contradiction using this a few times, and it seems extremely flawed. How is heterosexual union heterosexual sex? Is he seriously saying that without marriage, there is no procreation? He might actually have a point with gay sex, but basing this for gay marriage seems absurd.

Think about banning gay sex. We can have gay tests and castrate gay people, set up cameras in everyone's bedroom, have spies for everyone- it'd be 1984 all over again! And it would be soooo worth it!
kohai
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 10:20:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/16/2011 9:43:27 PM, seraine wrote:
Jim Spiegel's argument against gay marriage is essentially:

1. Heterosexual union is the indispensable means by which humans come into existence and therefore has special social value (indeed, the greatest possible social value because it is the first precondition for society).

2. The indispensable means by which something of special social value can occur itself has special value.

3. What has special value to human society deserves special social recognition and sanction.

4. Civil ordinances which recognize gay marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual unions.

5. To deny the special social value of what has special social value is unjust.

6. Therefore, gay marriage is unjust.

I have seen Contradiction using this a few times, and it seems extremely flawed. How is heterosexual union heterosexual sex? Is he seriously saying that without marriage, there is no procreation? He might actually have a point with gay sex, but basing this for gay marriage seems absurd.

Think about banning gay sex. We can have gay tests and castrate gay people, set up cameras in everyone's bedroom, have spies for everyone- it'd be 1984 all over again! And it would be soooo worth it!

I'm quite sick of hearing this argument.

4. Civil ordinances which recognize gay marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual unions.

This is completely and utterly bat crap and false.
1) Whatever has contradictory attributes does not exist.
2) The Biblical God has contradictory attributes.
3) Therefore, the Biblical God does not exist
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 10:28:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The ban on gay marriage is sanctified under the same logic that permits us to ban the consumption of cats and dogs.

Something of special social value, is protected and given special recognition by the law and by society.

To legalize gay marriage forces the tearing down of this logic. It begs the question of where do we form law and standard? Is it from what society wants, or is it from what is fair for everyone. These two concepts have often been used interchangeably, but gay marriage is the fork at which they depart.

This outline of society's wants versus fairness for all that sort of weakens my con gay marriage position, for should we not always model our law after what is fair for everyone?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
kohai
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 10:42:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/16/2011 10:28:22 PM, 000ike wrote:
The ban on gay marriage is sanctified under the same logic that permits us to ban the consumption of cats and dogs.

Something of special social value, is protected and given special recognition by the law and by society.

To legalize gay marriage forces the tearing down of this logic. It begs the question of where do we form law and standard? Is it from what society wants, or is it from what is fair for everyone. These two concepts have often been used interchangeably, but gay marriage is the fork at which they depart.

This outline of society's wants versus fairness for all that sort of weakens my con gay marriage position, for should we not always model our law after what is fair for everyone?

If we should do what is "fair" for everyone, you first need to define "fair." Personally, federally recognized marriage has caused too many issues and thus i believe it should not be federally recognized. However, I believe it should be privatized.

As for civil unions, I believe THAT is not fair.
1) Whatever has contradictory attributes does not exist.
2) The Biblical God has contradictory attributes.
3) Therefore, the Biblical God does not exist
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 10:52:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/16/2011 10:42:50 PM, kohai wrote:
At 9/16/2011 10:28:22 PM, 000ike wrote:
The ban on gay marriage is sanctified under the same logic that permits us to ban the consumption of cats and dogs.

Something of special social value, is protected and given special recognition by the law and by society.

To legalize gay marriage forces the tearing down of this logic. It begs the question of where do we form law and standard? Is it from what society wants, or is it from what is fair for everyone. These two concepts have often been used interchangeably, but gay marriage is the fork at which they depart.

This outline of society's wants versus fairness for all that sort of weakens my con gay marriage position, for should we not always model our law after what is fair for everyone?

If we should do what is "fair" for everyone, you first need to define "fair." Personally, federally recognized marriage has caused too many issues and thus i believe it should not be federally recognized. However, I believe it should be privatized.

As for civil unions, I believe THAT is not fair.

Well, here's the problem with that. Federally recognized marriage is both a benefit to the persons being recognized and the federal government. Its not going anywhere anytime soon because it is in consensus that fed. recog. marriage is a societal virtue. There really is no need to repeal something both parties involved approve of. The crazy variable here is the concept of upholding fairness.

How do you prove that it is fair to give gay people the right to marry? In, fact, just so we're clear, we're going to replace the word "marriage' with " recognition and benefits given to straight couples."

So, how do you prove that it is fair to give gay people the right to the same recognition and benefits that straight couples get, even though straight couples are valued more?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
thett3
Posts: 14,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 11:47:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/16/2011 9:43:27 PM, seraine wrote:
Jim Spiegel's argument against gay marriage is essentially:

1. Heterosexual union is the indispensable means by which humans come into existence and therefore has special social value (indeed, the greatest possible social value because it is the first precondition for society).

2. The indispensable means by which something of special social value can occur itself has special value.

3. What has special value to human society deserves special social recognition and sanction.

4. Civil ordinances which recognize gay marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual unions.

5. To deny the special social value of what has special social value is unjust.

6. Therefore, gay marriage is unjust.

I have seen Contradiction using this a few times, and it seems extremely flawed. How is heterosexual union heterosexual sex? Is he seriously saying that without marriage, there is no procreation? He might actually have a point with gay sex, but basing this for gay marriage seems absurd.

Think about banning gay sex. We can have gay tests and castrate gay people, set up cameras in everyone's bedroom, have spies for everyone- it'd be 1984 all over again! And it would be soooo worth it!

The argument is stating that heterosexual unions have an indispensable value to society, which cannot exist in homosexual unions. It isn't trying to claim that without marriage sex wouldn't exist, rather that unions with the maximum value ought to be given more legal recognition than those who do not, and can never gain, that same value. That's my take on it anyway.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right