Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

Here's An Idea!

Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2009 8:05:51 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
We all know the same old BS reasons that opponents of gay marriage present for their side. I commend (slightly) those who keep God out of it. However, I had this idea about what the gay community can do in order to make a counter-point to those ridiculous claims. Since relationships are more of a personal thing and yet what's in question is legal (let's keep it real... mainly money benefits), I propose that gay men and lesbians marry each other! I think this would be successful in several ways:

1) It will successfully combat the idea that marriage between same-sex couples is a mockery, by making marriage between heterosexuals a mockery (I think most people will get that this is to prove a point).

2) It will do what is fair and just in granting the same monetary benefits to those who currently cannot receive them based on their sexuality or sex.

3) It will show that people are going to continue being gay despite what a piece of paper says anyway, so you might as well just let the REAL couples join together if you're going to be giving these heathens the benefits of a legal union. That will at least preserve the last bit of "sanctity" that marriage has.

4) It would be hilarious to see the couples kiss at the wedding.

5) It would be one hell of a party :D

6) Legal documents and powers of attorney could be drawn and filed to protect the assets of each individual and their REAL partner (In other words, the only thing everyone would gain from this marriage are the TAX benefits; however, any other real benefit - such as life insurance or medical rights - will be reserved for the individual's true partner).

Anyway I'll leave it there for now. I personally think that this is a really good idea (or at least a really good threat) to get opponents to see the ignorance of their stance. And yes, I can say that this is the one and only topic which I feel so strongly on that I simply CANNOT see the other side (gay marriage), since any government non-marriage argument a la Ragnar doesn't stand so long as heterosexual marriage exists. Anyway, thoughts?
President of DDO
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2009 8:24:22 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
I think this is probably the most inventive and hilarious thing I have ever heard :P

I fully support this idea. In fact, I'm willing to bet that there's a facebook group for it XD
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2009 2:38:14 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I don't get it. Why would a gay guy and lesbian want to marry.. even as a joke? It also furthers the sterotype that gays are flamboyant and obnoxious.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2009 3:07:56 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
- I don't get what this "argument a la Ragnar" has to do with R_R.
- I'm probably only going to get married for the tax breaks.

Those are my thoughts on your post.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2009 4:56:14 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/15/2009 3:07:56 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
- I don't get what this "argument a la Ragnar" has to do with R_R.
Meh, I've told her before that I seek to eradicate several of the legal aspects of marriage, for both heterosexuals and homosexuals. Including the tax subsidies.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2009 5:02:07 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/15/2009 4:56:14 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/15/2009 3:07:56 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
- I don't get what this "argument a la Ragnar" has to do with R_R.
Meh, I've told her before that I seek to eradicate several of the legal aspects of marriage, for both heterosexuals and homosexuals. Including the tax subsidies.

"[....]I simply CANNOT see the other side (gay marriage), since any government non-marriage argument a la Ragnar doesn't stand so long as heterosexual marriage exists. Anyway, thoughts?"

Would you like to explain this to me then? Your argument doesn't stand so long as heterosexual marriage exists??? I dun get it.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2009 5:15:54 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
It doesn't "stand" in the immediate short term, because I'm supposed to somehow be responsible for Republican subsidies?

Meh, I never said I was fully decided on the immediate short term anyway, so I think she's misinterpreting :).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2009 5:56:17 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/15/2009 8:05:51 AM, theLwerd wrote:
We all know the same old BS reasons that opponents of gay marriage present for their side. I commend (slightly) those who keep God out of it. However, I had this idea about what the gay community can do in order to make a counter-point to those ridiculous claims. Since relationships are more of a personal thing and yet what's in question is legal (let's keep it real... mainly money benefits), I propose that gay men and lesbians marry each other! I think this would be successful in several ways:

1) It will successfully combat the idea that marriage between same-sex couples is a mockery, by making marriage between heterosexuals a mockery (I think most people will get that this is to prove a point).

2) It will do what is fair and just in granting the same monetary benefits to those who currently cannot receive them based on their sexuality or sex.

3) It will show that people are going to continue being gay despite what a piece of paper says anyway, so you might as well just let the REAL couples join together if you're going to be giving these heathens the benefits of a legal union. That will at least preserve the last bit of "sanctity" that marriage has.

4) It would be hilarious to see the couples kiss at the wedding.

5) It would be one hell of a party :D

6) Legal documents and powers of attorney could be drawn and filed to protect the assets of each individual and their REAL partner (In other words, the only thing everyone would gain from this marriage are the TAX benefits; however, any other real benefit - such as life insurance or medical rights - will be reserved for the individual's true partner).

Anyway I'll leave it there for now. I personally think that this is a really good idea (or at least a really good threat) to get opponents to see the ignorance of their stance. And yes, I can say that this is the one and only topic which I feel so strongly on that I simply CANNOT see the other side (gay marriage), since any government non-marriage argument a la Ragnar doesn't stand so long as heterosexual marriage exists. Anyway, thoughts?

Or just stop PRETENDING that there is ANYTHING other than a normal sexuality (which relates to reproduction with aspects of bonding etc) and stop figureing out NEW ways to stick the proverbial middle finger up to an utterly Holy and Just God.
The Cross.. the Cross.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2009 6:18:28 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Or just stop PRETENDING that there is ANYTHING other than a normal sexuality

By definition, there can be no normal if there is no abnormal... so your statement must be false.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2009 6:44:45 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/16/2009 6:18:28 AM, Floid wrote:
Or just stop PRETENDING that there is ANYTHING other than a normal sexuality

By definition, there can be no normal if there is no abnormal... so your statement must be false.

No, there is abnormal.. go and get yourself a nice cup of tea or something..
The Cross.. the Cross.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2009 11:34:59 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/15/2009 2:38:14 PM, Nags wrote:
I don't get it. Why would a gay guy and lesbian want to marry.. even as a joke? It also furthers the sterotype that gays are flamboyant and obnoxious.

Did you not read my post? In addition to the whole, oh - you know - EQUALITY issue, those in gay marriage-like relationships don't get TAX SUBSIDIES that are privy to heterosexual married couples. So moral implications aside, this comes down to an issue of money. Say if I were single and I had to pay $100 in taxes (for argument sake) but if I were legally married I only had to pay $60. My point is that in obtaining a heterosexual marriage (even with a gay man), we don't have to live as a "traditional" married couple and yet we would still receive the FINANCIAL benefits that goes along with heterosexual marriage. Coupled with the other points that this endeavor would make (pointing out the discrepancies and other nonsense BS arguments that people anti-gay marriage make), I think it would be the most fair option. We could appease people by marrying heterosexually and yet receive our tax break just as other Americans do.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2009 11:36:58 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Rezz/Ragnar: My point is that although I ultimately agree with Ragnar that there should be no tax benefits given simply because you're married, the reality is that there ARE. So, if these tax breaks are going to exist then they cannot be discriminatory against homosexuals since it is not a private thing but rather a government issue. The government has to be fair. Eliminate all tax benefits or don't punish gay people simply because you disapprove of who they're sleeping with. It's not your choice.
President of DDO
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2009 3:49:24 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I think theLwerd's is novel, at worst, and could actually work. Why not? The kids will have both male and female role models, albeit unconventional ones, but so what? Better than having children for the sake of society, religious or family expectations at the very least.

And let's not forget, until quite recently, homosexuality was illegal and I suppose, therefore, that these sort of arrangements were common in the past.
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
BIgMac_2
Posts: 365
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2009 4:38:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
One word: Consummation. i rest my case XD
Body's breaking, drive me crazy
This is not your place
No, this is not your playground it's my heart
We were stupid, we got caught
Nothing matters anymore
So what? Here we are Juggernaut
- Coheed & Cambria

NOTE: WHEN SHOOTING A MIME, DO NOT USE A SILENCER OR HIS FRIENDS WILL HEAR YOU.
USAPitBull63
Posts: 668
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2009 2:42:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
It's fairly easy to debate gay marriage on non-religious terms.

Those who go the God route are just begging for circular reasoning and endless banter back and forth. Kinda like the atheists vs. believers "debates."
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2009 2:44:16 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/18/2009 2:42:19 PM, USAPitBull63 wrote:
It's fairly easy to debate gay marriage on non-religious terms.

Con would lose regardless of the arguments, use of God, etc.
President of DDO
USAPitBull63
Posts: 668
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2009 2:50:04 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/18/2009 2:44:16 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 9/18/2009 2:42:19 PM, USAPitBull63 wrote:
It's fairly easy to debate gay marriage on non-religious terms.

Con would lose regardless of the arguments, use of God, etc.

Nah. It's possible, but not inevitable.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2009 11:49:49 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/17/2009 11:36:58 AM, theLwerd wrote:
Rezz/Ragnar: [...]The government has to be fair. Eliminate all tax benefits or don't punish gay people simply because you disapprove of who they're sleeping with. It's not your choice.

Mmmkay. I'm with R_R, but I'm still interested.

Why would the government want to give heterosexual couples tax breaks.... The incentive, at least with my limited knowledge, in giving heterosexual couples tax breaks is because the government wants them to have children, which will in turn more than likely go to a public s- ahem, indoctrination camp, which will in turn more than likely turn the kid into a government supporter (if not fanatic cultist), on top of the fact that the kid is an addition to the taxpayer pool. The only difference I can think of is that homosexual couples can't have kids.

I don't buy that the government actually opposes homosexual couple tax breaks on a "moral" standpoint. Actually, that's not accurate. It's more that I don't buy the concept of tax breaks period; they're always done for some other long term benefit. Kids would be that long term benefit. There is no equivalent for homosexual couples. I can't think of any other economic differences, so I think what I made up on the spot there is a possible, if completely unproven, answer as to why heterosexual couples have it and homosexual couples don't :P
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
USAPitBull63
Posts: 668
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2009 4:03:17 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/18/2009 11:18:37 PM, theLwerd wrote:
I'd like to take you up on that. Challenge me sometime.

If you're willing to wait till July, sure. Possibly November or December. Because of my work schedule, I cannot always commit to debates in time until legitimate breaks in my schedule, which has basically been July-early August. (For example, today was the first time I've been here in the past week or two.)

Is there a way to debate without time limits/deadlines for arguments? If so, I could probably do that. Just let me know. If so, challenge me sometime.

But I can come by now and then to post in this forum. No deadline here.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2009 6:10:36 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
same sex 'marriage' is an absolute contradiction: A nut and a bolt were created to marry.. the coupling mechanism on a train carriage is designed to marry.. a man and a woman were created/designed to marry both externally and internally.
The Cross.. the Cross.