Total Posts:45|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Debating over SSM?

DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 10:29:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Seriously--I've had this sentiment for a while now.

I find it appalling that we even still have to debate over whether same-sex marriage should be legalized. Making it illegal is just a travesty of justice, and the fact that gays/bisexuals have to somehow "prove themselves worthy" is just despicable.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 10:38:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm pro gay marriage, but I need a bit of clarification on why a Libertarian would be. You want minimal government intervention and influence correct? Why not just dissolve the state recognized institution of marriage all together?
"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
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 10:44:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/8/2012 10:38:29 AM, 000ike wrote:
I'm pro gay marriage, but I need a bit of clarification on why a Libertarian would be. You want minimal government intervention and influence correct? Why not just dissolve the state recognized institution of marriage all together?

As Danielle posted in another thread, that would be all well and good, but the reality of the matter is that stat-run marriage isn't going anywhere anytime soon. So, under that unfortunate reality, the next best thing is to provide equal coverage.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
thett3
Posts: 14,344
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 10:45:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/8/2012 10:29:20 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Seriously--I've had this sentiment for a while now.

I find it appalling that we even still have to debate over whether same-sex marriage should be legalized. Making it illegal is just a travesty of justice, and the fact that gays/bisexuals have to somehow "prove themselves worthy" is just despicable.

The same can be said about polygamous marriage.

The issue is not so much of homosexuals being discriminated against as much as it is of them not meeting the qualifications for marriage. It's not discrimination because you aren't entitled government hand-outs for being together. "Marriage" of homosexuals is just silly.

Tell me, what if I'm in love with 5 woman and they all love me back, what grounds would the state have to deny me benefits when I "marry" them all?
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
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 10:46:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/8/2012 10:45:27 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 1/8/2012 10:29:20 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Seriously--I've had this sentiment for a while now.

I find it appalling that we even still have to debate over whether same-sex marriage should be legalized. Making it illegal is just a travesty of justice, and the fact that gays/bisexuals have to somehow "prove themselves worthy" is just despicable.

The same can be said about polygamous marriage.

The issue is not so much of homosexuals being discriminated against as much as it is of them not meeting the qualifications for marriage. It's not discrimination because you aren't entitled government hand-outs for being together. "Marriage" of homosexuals is just silly.

Tell me, what if I'm in love with 5 woman and they all love me back, what grounds would the state have to deny me benefits when I "marry" them all?

They wouldn't have any. You should be free to marry all five of them.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
thett3
Posts: 14,344
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 10:48:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/8/2012 10:46:33 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 1/8/2012 10:45:27 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 1/8/2012 10:29:20 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Seriously--I've had this sentiment for a while now.

I find it appalling that we even still have to debate over whether same-sex marriage should be legalized. Making it illegal is just a travesty of justice, and the fact that gays/bisexuals have to somehow "prove themselves worthy" is just despicable.

The same can be said about polygamous marriage.

The issue is not so much of homosexuals being discriminated against as much as it is of them not meeting the qualifications for marriage. It's not discrimination because you aren't entitled government hand-outs for being together. "Marriage" of homosexuals is just silly.

Tell me, what if I'm in love with 5 woman and they all love me back, what grounds would the state have to deny me benefits when I "marry" them all?

They wouldn't have any. You should be free to marry all five of them.

Kay, so you're basically saying that the state should not set qualifications on who gets benefits from a state institution? Can I legally marry myself?
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
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 10:50:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/8/2012 10:44:04 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 1/8/2012 10:38:29 AM, 000ike wrote:
I'm pro gay marriage, but I need a bit of clarification on why a Libertarian would be. You want minimal government intervention and influence correct? Why not just dissolve the state recognized institution of marriage all together?

As Danielle posted in another thread, that would be all well and good, but the reality of the matter is that stat-run marriage isn't going anywhere anytime soon. So, under that unfortunate reality, the next best thing is to provide equal coverage.

I don't think that's a sound argument to make. Ideologies (derivation IDEAL) work around what ought to be done, not what is realistic at the moment. You cannot relinquish principles of belief to accommodate the intolerance of mainstream.

By this logic, an anarchist would have no relevance in any political discussion as their ideas are like fiction right now. An anarchist then compromising his ideology to suit the times is still committing hypocrisy or contradiction.
"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
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 10:51:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/8/2012 10:29:20 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Seriously--I've had this sentiment for a while now.

I find it appalling that we even still have to debate over whether same-sex marriage should be legalized. Making it illegal is just a travesty of justice, and the fact that gays/bisexuals have to somehow "prove themselves worthy" is just despicable.

Because the legalization of gay marriage threatens the foundations of society that have been built over the past 3 000 years. Marriage is a sacred convenient between a man and a woman. To somehow disregard thousands of years of history is sort of obnoxious. Gay people have been alive since the beginning of civilization, however not once has gay marriage been previously legalized. Not once, before unfortunate era of liberalization, have the homosexuals taken a call to arms on history. The legalization of gay marriage not only posed a threat to society via slippery slopes but also threatens the very ideals that built human history. I'm sorry if I offend you, but that is my position.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 10:53:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/8/2012 10:48:25 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 1/8/2012 10:46:33 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 1/8/2012 10:45:27 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 1/8/2012 10:29:20 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Seriously--I've had this sentiment for a while now.

I find it appalling that we even still have to debate over whether same-sex marriage should be legalized. Making it illegal is just a travesty of justice, and the fact that gays/bisexuals have to somehow "prove themselves worthy" is just despicable.

The same can be said about polygamous marriage.

The issue is not so much of homosexuals being discriminated against as much as it is of them not meeting the qualifications for marriage. It's not discrimination because you aren't entitled government hand-outs for being together. "Marriage" of homosexuals is just silly.

Tell me, what if I'm in love with 5 woman and they all love me back, what grounds would the state have to deny me benefits when I "marry" them all?

They wouldn't have any. You should be free to marry all five of them.

Kay, so you're basically saying that the state should not set qualifications on who gets benefits from a state institution? Can I legally marry myself?

No actually, he's saying that a state has the duty to be fair in its distribution of benefits. I suppose by your logic, the state could set qualifications (based on race) on who can get government jobs right?
"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: 14,344
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 10:58:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/8/2012 10:53:42 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/8/2012 10:48:25 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 1/8/2012 10:46:33 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 1/8/2012 10:45:27 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 1/8/2012 10:29:20 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Seriously--I've had this sentiment for a while now.

I find it appalling that we even still have to debate over whether same-sex marriage should be legalized. Making it illegal is just a travesty of justice, and the fact that gays/bisexuals have to somehow "prove themselves worthy" is just despicable.

The same can be said about polygamous marriage.

The issue is not so much of homosexuals being discriminated against as much as it is of them not meeting the qualifications for marriage. It's not discrimination because you aren't entitled government hand-outs for being together. "Marriage" of homosexuals is just silly.

Tell me, what if I'm in love with 5 woman and they all love me back, what grounds would the state have to deny me benefits when I "marry" them all?

They wouldn't have any. You should be free to marry all five of them.

Kay, so you're basically saying that the state should not set qualifications on who gets benefits from a state institution? Can I legally marry myself?

No actually, he's saying that a state has the duty to be fair in its distribution of benefits. I suppose by your logic, the state could set qualifications (based on race) on who can get government jobs right?

000ike, that can't be what he's saying or else I've lost ALOT of respect for him. The state doesnt have a duty to be fair when distributing benefits! The State gives benefits to those it feels deserves them (the state will not be giving out welfare to billionaires, for example). The equality argument isnt sound because it doesnt justify why homosexuals deserve the benefits that come with marriage other than wanting "equality".

I actually like your race analogy, it's a pretty good response but the problem is that if the government set race-qualifications on jobs than they would be turning away good employees simply because of race. Before we could apply this analogy to homosexual couplings, it first must be shown that the state has a legitimate interest in them.
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
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 11:00:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/8/2012 10:59:57 AM, jm_notguilty wrote:
At 1/8/2012 10:51:15 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
To somehow disregard thousands of years of history is sort of obnoxious.

Proponents of slavery argued the same thing.

Yes. What's your point?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
thett3
Posts: 14,344
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 11:01:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/8/2012 10:59:57 AM, jm_notguilty wrote:
At 1/8/2012 10:51:15 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
To somehow disregard thousands of years of history is sort of obnoxious.

Proponents of slavery argued the same thing.

Lets bring back slavery!
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
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 11:03:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/8/2012 11:01:41 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 1/8/2012 10:59:57 AM, jm_notguilty wrote:
At 1/8/2012 10:51:15 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
To somehow disregard thousands of years of history is sort of obnoxious.

Proponents of slavery argued the same thing.

Lets bring back slavery!

This.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
thett3
Posts: 14,344
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 11:05:01 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/8/2012 11:03:07 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/8/2012 11:01:41 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 1/8/2012 10:59:57 AM, jm_notguilty wrote:
At 1/8/2012 10:51:15 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
To somehow disregard thousands of years of history is sort of obnoxious.

Proponents of slavery argued the same thing.

Lets bring back slavery!

This.

I was kidding

this is awkward.....
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
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 11:06:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/8/2012 11:05:01 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 1/8/2012 11:03:07 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/8/2012 11:01:41 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 1/8/2012 10:59:57 AM, jm_notguilty wrote:
At 1/8/2012 10:51:15 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
To somehow disregard thousands of years of history is sort of obnoxious.

Proponents of slavery argued the same thing.

Lets bring back slavery!

This.

I was kidding

this is awkward.....

http://myfacewhen.com...
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
thett3
Posts: 14,344
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 11:08:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Just so you know DN, I honestly dont dislike gay people. I know alot (ok like 90%) of anti-SSM people hate them, but I dont, and I want it to be clear that I respect you even if we disagree on this.
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
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 11:11:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/8/2012 11:08:29 AM, thett3 wrote:
Just so you know DN, I honestly dont dislike gay people. I know alot (ok like 90%) of anti-SSM people hate them, but I dont, and I want it to be clear that I respect you even if we disagree on this.

And I, you.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 11:17:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/8/2012 10:58:25 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 1/8/2012 10:53:42 AM, 000ike wrote:

No actually, he's saying that a state has the duty to be fair in its distribution of benefits. I suppose by your logic, the state could set qualifications (based on race) on who can get government jobs right?

000ike, that can't be what he's saying or else I've lost ALOT of respect for him. The state doesnt have a duty to be fair when distributing benefits! The State gives benefits to those it feels deserves them (the state will not be giving out welfare to billionaires, for example). The equality argument isnt sound because it doesnt justify why homosexuals deserve the benefits that come with marriage other than wanting "equality".

I actually like your race analogy, it's a pretty good response but the problem is that if the government set race-qualifications on jobs than they would be turning away good employees simply because of race. Before we could apply this analogy to homosexual couplings, it first must be shown that the state has a legitimate interest in them.

Just so we're clear, the state is the servant of the people. The state was created by the people to serve and protect the people, and secure their interests. When you treat government like this independent entity that can make decisions contrary to the peoples' desires, that's when we get dangerously close to a tyrannical state.

Marriage, religion aside, is purely a request of the people to the state. To deny it to a whole group of citizens is a breach of justice and democracy in my opinion. You can't treat people like second class citizens.

Also, the whole anti-SSM argument is religiously charged. Any law of the sort is unconstitutional, and if Warren were here, he'd probably establish it in a court case.
"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
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 11:19:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/8/2012 11:17:45 AM, jm_notguilty wrote:
Seriously LK, you support slavery?

Slavery in the sense of certain populations ought to be slaves, no.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 11:21:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/8/2012 11:19:00 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/8/2012 11:17:45 AM, jm_notguilty wrote:
Seriously LK, you support slavery?


Slavery in the sense of certain populations ought to be slaves, no.

Why doesn't everyone treat you like we treat Charleslb?
"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
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 11:23:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/8/2012 11:21:49 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/8/2012 11:19:00 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/8/2012 11:17:45 AM, jm_notguilty wrote:
Seriously LK, you support slavery?


Slavery in the sense of certain populations ought to be slaves, no.

Why doesn't everyone treat you like we treat Charleslb?

What's wrong now, Ike?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
thett3
Posts: 14,344
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 11:24:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/8/2012 11:17:59 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/8/2012 10:58:25 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 1/8/2012 10:53:42 AM, 000ike wrote:

No actually, he's saying that a state has the duty to be fair in its distribution of benefits. I suppose by your logic, the state could set qualifications (based on race) on who can get government jobs right?

000ike, that can't be what he's saying or else I've lost ALOT of respect for him. The state doesnt have a duty to be fair when distributing benefits! The State gives benefits to those it feels deserves them (the state will not be giving out welfare to billionaires, for example). The equality argument isnt sound because it doesnt justify why homosexuals deserve the benefits that come with marriage other than wanting "equality".

I actually like your race analogy, it's a pretty good response but the problem is that if the government set race-qualifications on jobs than they would be turning away good employees simply because of race. Before we could apply this analogy to homosexual couplings, it first must be shown that the state has a legitimate interest in them.

Just so we're clear, the state is the servant of the people. The state was created by the people to serve and protect the people, and secure their interests. When you treat government like this independent entity that can make decisions contrary to the peoples' desires, that's when we get dangerously close to a tyrannical state.

True and false. I mean you are right, but at the same time the State is not (or should not be) a populist institution. Imagine, for instance, that we based all legislation on opinion polls? We both know that would be terrible.

Marriage, religion aside, is purely a request of the people to the state. To deny it to a whole group of citizens is a breach of justice and democracy in my opinion. You can't treat people like second class citizens.

I don't see it that way. You're also denying it to a whole group of citizens when you don't allow polygamy, for example. Or children marriage, whatever else. I dont feel the state ought to offer benefits to same-sex couples (well I dont think they should give benefits to any couples, but thats irrelevant) unless their relationships are of equal value to opposite sex ones

Also, the whole anti-SSM argument is religiously charged. Any law of the sort is unconstitutional, and if Warren were here, he'd probably establish it in a court case.

I agree with you here to a point. A lot of it IS religiously based, and it should not be.
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
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 11:31:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/8/2012 11:24:46 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 1/8/2012 11:17:59 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/8/2012 10:58:25 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 1/8/2012 10:53:42 AM, 000ike wrote:

No actually, he's saying that a state has the duty to be fair in its distribution of benefits. I suppose by your logic, the state could set qualifications (based on race) on who can get government jobs right?

000ike, that can't be what he's saying or else I've lost ALOT of respect for him. The state doesnt have a duty to be fair when distributing benefits! The State gives benefits to those it feels deserves them (the state will not be giving out welfare to billionaires, for example). The equality argument isnt sound because it doesnt justify why homosexuals deserve the benefits that come with marriage other than wanting "equality".

I actually like your race analogy, it's a pretty good response but the problem is that if the government set race-qualifications on jobs than they would be turning away good employees simply because of race. Before we could apply this analogy to homosexual couplings, it first must be shown that the state has a legitimate interest in them.

Just so we're clear, the state is the servant of the people. The state was created by the people to serve and protect the people, and secure their interests. When you treat government like this independent entity that can make decisions contrary to the peoples' desires, that's when we get dangerously close to a tyrannical state.

True and false. I mean you are right, but at the same time the State is not (or should not be) a populist institution. Imagine, for instance, that we based all legislation on opinion polls? We both know that would be terrible.

Opinion polls are a false representation of democracy. The point is that the state can NEVER, EVER, institute a law that the majority is against. That would be the essence of subjugation. If the country wants SSM legal, then the state must obey.

Marriage, religion aside, is purely a request of the people to the state. To deny it to a whole group of citizens is a breach of justice and democracy in my opinion. You can't treat people like second class citizens.

I don't see it that way. You're also denying it to a whole group of citizens when you don't allow polygamy, for example. Or children marriage, whatever else. I dont feel the state ought to offer benefits to same-sex couples (well I dont think they should give benefits to any couples, but thats irrelevant) unless their relationships are of equal value to opposite sex ones

Children can't marry because they lack the full level of consciousness of decision, independence, maturity, and development as to prevent exploitation. There's nothing wrong with polygamous marriages. So, those examples don't really apply.

Also, the whole anti-SSM argument is religiously charged. Any law of the sort is unconstitutional, and if Warren were here, he'd probably establish it in a court case.

I agree with you here to a point. A lot of it IS religiously based, and it should not be.
lol You're going to become a liberal one day I swear.
"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: 14,344
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 11:41:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/8/2012 11:31:38 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/8/2012 11:24:46 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 1/8/2012 11:17:59 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/8/2012 10:58:25 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 1/8/2012 10:53:42 AM, 000ike wrote:

No actually, he's saying that a state has the duty to be fair in its distribution of benefits. I suppose by your logic, the state could set qualifications (based on race) on who can get government jobs right?

000ike, that can't be what he's saying or else I've lost ALOT of respect for him. The state doesnt have a duty to be fair when distributing benefits! The State gives benefits to those it feels deserves them (the state will not be giving out welfare to billionaires, for example). The equality argument isnt sound because it doesnt justify why homosexuals deserve the benefits that come with marriage other than wanting "equality".

I actually like your race analogy, it's a pretty good response but the problem is that if the government set race-qualifications on jobs than they would be turning away good employees simply because of race. Before we could apply this analogy to homosexual couplings, it first must be shown that the state has a legitimate interest in them.

Just so we're clear, the state is the servant of the people. The state was created by the people to serve and protect the people, and secure their interests. When you treat government like this independent entity that can make decisions contrary to the peoples' desires, that's when we get dangerously close to a tyrannical state.

True and false. I mean you are right, but at the same time the State is not (or should not be) a populist institution. Imagine, for instance, that we based all legislation on opinion polls? We both know that would be terrible.

Opinion polls are a false representation of democracy. The point is that the state can NEVER, EVER, institute a law that the majority is against. That would be the essence of subjugation. If the country wants SSM legal, then the state must obey.

This is where we fundamentally disagree. I guess you're right when you say that opinion polls are a poor reflection of opinions, but even if theoretically we could know exactly what the populace wants I still dont think we should automatically pass a law. Plenty of laws have been passed against the consent of the majority, but it doesnt make them all bad. If southern states repealed their jim crow laws even though the white populace wanted them, it wouldnt be something bad.

Marriage, religion aside, is purely a request of the people to the state. To deny it to a whole group of citizens is a breach of justice and democracy in my opinion. You can't treat people like second class citizens.

I don't see it that way. You're also denying it to a whole group of citizens when you don't allow polygamy, for example. Or children marriage, whatever else. I dont feel the state ought to offer benefits to same-sex couples (well I dont think they should give benefits to any couples, but thats irrelevant) unless their relationships are of equal value to opposite sex ones

Children can't marry because they lack the full level of consciousness of decision, independence, maturity, and development as to prevent exploitation. There's nothing wrong with polygamous marriages. So, those examples don't really apply.

But here's the problem I have with that, why do you recognize decision/independence/maturity to be fundamental to marriage (I agree with you here), but not other things like being between a man and a woman, or etween two people? My question is basically this: how do we evaluate what is fundamental to marriage, and what are those things?

Also, the whole anti-SSM argument is religiously charged. Any law of the sort is unconstitutional, and if Warren were here, he'd probably establish it in a court case.

I agree with you here to a point. A lot of it IS religiously based, and it should not be.
lol You're going to become a liberal one day I swear.

Ehh libertarian is more likely
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
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 11:46:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The "the State needs a reason" argument is something I've always found strange. It's classifying, as Ike said, the State as some sort of separate entity.

Under that logic of needing a reason, we should all thank and worship our government for allowing us to live another day.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
thett3
Posts: 14,344
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 11:48:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/8/2012 11:46:28 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
The "the State needs a reason" argument is something I've always found strange. It's classifying, as Ike said, the State as some sort of separate entity.

Under that logic of needing a reason, we should all thank and worship our government for allowing us to live another day.

Nah, because we (in most peoples view, including mine) have an inherent right to life.

We dont however have the right to receive government handouts.
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
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 11:48:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/8/2012 11:46:28 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
The "the State needs a reason" argument is something I've always found strange. It's classifying, as Ike said, the State as some sort of separate entity.

Under that logic of needing a reason, we should all thank and worship our government for allowing us to live another day.

Damn right.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 11:53:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/8/2012 11:41:18 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 1/8/2012 11:31:38 AM, 000ike wrote:

Opinion polls are a false representation of democracy. The point is that the state can NEVER, EVER, institute a law that the majority is against. That would be the essence of subjugation. If the country wants SSM legal, then the state must obey.

This is where we fundamentally disagree. I guess you're right when you say that opinion polls are a poor reflection of opinions, but even if theoretically we could know exactly what the populace wants I still dont think we should automatically pass a law. Plenty of laws have been passed against the consent of the majority, but it doesnt make them all bad. If southern states repealed their jim crow laws even though the white populace wanted them, it wouldnt be something bad.

Actually, Jim Crow is a matter of morality and natural, human, and constitutional rights. Even then, the state is not the one that must fight for morality, the people are. The state is not a parent, it is a reflection of the populace no matter how wrong the populace is. A minority cannot decide it knows more and better than the majority and subject them to their ideas.

In short, it would be bad, if the national government repealed jim crow when the vast majority wanted it. However, variables like the Constitution would give the government the right to repeal it, since the law was unconstitutional.

Marriage, religion aside, is purely a request of the people to the state. To deny it to a whole group of citizens is a breach of justice and democracy in my opinion. You can't treat people like second class citizens.

I don't see it that way. You're also denying it to a whole group of citizens when you don't allow polygamy, for example. Or children marriage, whatever else. I dont feel the state ought to offer benefits to same-sex couples (well I dont think they should give benefits to any couples, but thats irrelevant) unless their relationships are of equal value to opposite sex ones

Children can't marry because they lack the full level of consciousness of decision, independence, maturity, and development as to prevent exploitation. There's nothing wrong with polygamous marriages. So, those examples don't really apply.

But here's the problem I have with that, why do you recognize decision/independence/maturity to be fundamental to marriage (I agree with you here), but not other things like being between a man and a woman, or etween two people? My question is basically this: how do we evaluate what is fundamental to marriage, and what are those things?

I recognize it because its matter of morality and fairness. It is unfair to place children in a situation where they can be exploited or lead to undesirable situations. However, there is nothing unfair about giving fully able and mature adults the right to marry. THAT is how we should evaluate what is fundamental to marriage.

Also, the whole anti-SSM argument is religiously charged. Any law of the sort is unconstitutional, and if Warren were here, he'd probably establish it in a court case.

I agree with you here to a point. A lot of it IS religiously based, and it should not be.
lol You're going to become a liberal one day I swear.

Ehh libertarian is more likely
"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