Total Posts:69|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Let's Leave Gay Giraffes Alone

teddy2013
Posts: 119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 7:32:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
In a earlier thread, "Secular arguments against homosexuality", I had argued that a moral case could be made against homosexuality without invoking God.

In the course of making my argument, I used the word unnatural in conjunction. with homosexual's. I used this word because it is the first word that came to mind after mentioning man on man anal sex. Little did I know I was bringing the entire animal kingdom into the discussion.

So, for the record, let me acknowledge that there is homosexual activity in nature. However, since there are both wonderful things that happen in nature (animals nurturing their offspring), as well as terrible things (Garret's example of animals killing their young), the nature argument does not sway me either way.

The secular argument against homosexuality survives without Bible versus, or nature references. At the heart of the argument is the following question. Is it is reasonable for a person to conclude that two men engaging in anal intercourse is immoral? It certainly is reasonable, I would also argue that others could ponder the same question and conclude it is not immoral. For me I have concluded it is immoral, but in any event, agree or disagree, it is reasonable to draw that conclusion.

On a lighter note, I would assume that wherever there are two gay giraffes, those long necks come in handy.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 7:59:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/29/2013 7:32:00 PM, teddy2013 wrote:
Is it is reasonable for a person to conclude that two men engaging in anal intercourse is immoral? It certainly is reasonable, I would also argue that others could ponder the same question and conclude it is not immoral. For me I have concluded it is immoral, but in any event, agree or disagree, it is reasonable to draw that conclusion.

And what's the reason? You've tossed out religion and nature (neither of which were good reasons to begin with). So what is the reason for concluding that gay sex is immoral?
teddy2013
Posts: 119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 8:06:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/29/2013 7:56:09 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
Are handjobs and blowjobs immoral too, or is it the poop that offends you?

How does a giraffe give a hand job?
teddy2013
Posts: 119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 8:13:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/29/2013 7:59:24 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/29/2013 7:32:00 PM, teddy2013 wrote:
Is it is reasonable for a person to conclude that two men engaging in anal intercourse is immoral? It certainly is reasonable, I would also argue that others could ponder the same question and conclude it is not immoral. For me I have concluded it is immoral, but in any event, agree or disagree, it is reasonable to draw that conclusion.

And what's the reason? You've tossed out religion and nature (neither of which were good reasons to begin with). So what is the reason for concluding that gay sex is immoral?

The same way I would conclude that a 40 year old man having sex with a 9 year old girl is immoral. As far as I know, the Bible does not mention it. Also I am sure there are old Cows, that sexually go after young calves, so it happens in nature. However, I still know it is wrong, sometimes you just know.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 8:16:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/29/2013 8:13:57 PM, teddy2013 wrote:
At 1/29/2013 7:59:24 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/29/2013 7:32:00 PM, teddy2013 wrote:
Is it is reasonable for a person to conclude that two men engaging in anal intercourse is immoral? It certainly is reasonable, I would also argue that others could ponder the same question and conclude it is not immoral. For me I have concluded it is immoral, but in any event, agree or disagree, it is reasonable to draw that conclusion.

And what's the reason? You've tossed out religion and nature (neither of which were good reasons to begin with). So what is the reason for concluding that gay sex is immoral?

The same way I would conclude that a 40 year old man having sex with a 9 year old girl is immoral.

Since I am not privvy to how you, as an individual, arrive at your conclusions of morality/immorality, this answer is hardly enlightening.

As far as I know, the Bible does not mention it. Also I am sure there are old Cows, that sexually go after young calves, so it happens in nature. However, I still know it is wrong, sometimes you just know.

Epistemologically, you don't. Knowledge requires justification. If you don't have it, you don't know. If you do have it, what is it?
teddy2013
Posts: 119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 8:20:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/29/2013 8:16:20 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/29/2013 8:13:57 PM, teddy2013 wrote:
At 1/29/2013 7:59:24 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/29/2013 7:32:00 PM, teddy2013 wrote:
Is it is reasonable for a person to conclude that two men engaging in anal intercourse is immoral? It certainly is reasonable, I would also argue that others could ponder the same question and conclude it is not immoral. For me I have concluded it is immoral, but in any event, agree or disagree, it is reasonable to draw that conclusion.

And what's the reason? You've tossed out religion and nature (neither of which were good reasons to begin with). So what is the reason for concluding that gay sex is immoral?

The same way I would conclude that a 40 year old man having sex with a 9 year old girl is immoral.

Since I am not privvy to how you, as an individual, arrive at your conclusions of morality/immorality, this answer is hardly enlightening.

As far as I know, the Bible does not mention it. Also I am sure there are old Cows, that sexually go after young calves, so it happens in nature. However, I still know it is wrong, sometimes you just know.

Epistemologically, you don't. Knowledge requires justification. If you don't have it, you don't know. If you do have it, what is it?

Can we at least agree that a 40 year old man having sex with a nine year old boy is wrong?
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 8:21:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/29/2013 8:20:00 PM, teddy2013 wrote:
At 1/29/2013 8:16:20 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/29/2013 8:13:57 PM, teddy2013 wrote:
At 1/29/2013 7:59:24 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/29/2013 7:32:00 PM, teddy2013 wrote:
Is it is reasonable for a person to conclude that two men engaging in anal intercourse is immoral? It certainly is reasonable, I would also argue that others could ponder the same question and conclude it is not immoral. For me I have concluded it is immoral, but in any event, agree or disagree, it is reasonable to draw that conclusion.

And what's the reason? You've tossed out religion and nature (neither of which were good reasons to begin with). So what is the reason for concluding that gay sex is immoral?

The same way I would conclude that a 40 year old man having sex with a 9 year old girl is immoral.

Since I am not privvy to how you, as an individual, arrive at your conclusions of morality/immorality, this answer is hardly enlightening.

As far as I know, the Bible does not mention it. Also I am sure there are old Cows, that sexually go after young calves, so it happens in nature. However, I still know it is wrong, sometimes you just know.

Epistemologically, you don't. Knowledge requires justification. If you don't have it, you don't know. If you do have it, what is it?

Can we at least agree that a 40 year old man having sex with a nine year old boy is wrong?

Yes. But I don't agree that homosexual acts are immoral. So if your reasons for believing that a 40 year old man have sex with a nine year old body is wrong are the same as your reasons for believing that homosexual acts in general are wrong, then they are different reasons than mine, so I don't understand the relevance of showing that we agree on some conclusion when the issue here is your reasoning.

You said it is reasonable. What are you reasons? We get it, you think it's wrong.

Now why do you think that?
teddy2013
Posts: 119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 8:29:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/29/2013 8:21:43 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/29/2013 8:20:00 PM, teddy2013 wrote:
At 1/29/2013 8:16:20 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/29/2013 8:13:57 PM, teddy2013 wrote:
At 1/29/2013 7:59:24 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/29/2013 7:32:00 PM, teddy2013 wrote:
Is it is reasonable for a person to conclude that two men engaging in anal intercourse is immoral? It certainly is reasonable, I would also argue that others could ponder the same question and conclude it is not immoral. For me I have concluded it is immoral, but in any event, agree or disagree, it is reasonable to draw that conclusion.

And what's the reason? You've tossed out religion and nature (neither of which were good reasons to begin with). So what is the reason for concluding that gay sex is immoral?

The same way I would conclude that a 40 year old man having sex with a 9 year old girl is immoral.

Since I am not privvy to how you, as an individual, arrive at your conclusions of morality/immorality, this answer is hardly enlightening.

As far as I know, the Bible does not mention it. Also I am sure there are old Cows, that sexually go after young calves, so it happens in nature. However, I still know it is wrong, sometimes you just know.

Epistemologically, you don't. Knowledge requires justification. If you don't have it, you don't know. If you do have it, what is it?

Can we at least agree that a 40 year old man having sex with a nine year old boy is wrong?

Yes. But I don't agree that homosexual acts are immoral. So if your reasons for believing that a 40 year old man have sex with a nine year old body is wrong are the same as your reasons for believing that homosexual acts in general are wrong, then they are different reasons than mine, so I don't understand the relevance of showing that we agree on some conclusion when the issue here is your reasoning.

You said it is reasonable. What are you reasons? We get it, you think it's wrong.

Now why do you think that?

I am just happy we can agree on something. Can we agree that two forty year old people of the opposite sex, having sex with each other is moral ?
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 8:44:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/29/2013 8:29:53 PM, teddy2013 wrote:
At 1/29/2013 8:21:43 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/29/2013 8:20:00 PM, teddy2013 wrote:
At 1/29/2013 8:16:20 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/29/2013 8:13:57 PM, teddy2013 wrote:
At 1/29/2013 7:59:24 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/29/2013 7:32:00 PM, teddy2013 wrote:
Is it is reasonable for a person to conclude that two men engaging in anal intercourse is immoral? It certainly is reasonable, I would also argue that others could ponder the same question and conclude it is not immoral. For me I have concluded it is immoral, but in any event, agree or disagree, it is reasonable to draw that conclusion.

And what's the reason? You've tossed out religion and nature (neither of which were good reasons to begin with). So what is the reason for concluding that gay sex is immoral?

The same way I would conclude that a 40 year old man having sex with a 9 year old girl is immoral.

Since I am not privvy to how you, as an individual, arrive at your conclusions of morality/immorality, this answer is hardly enlightening.

As far as I know, the Bible does not mention it. Also I am sure there are old Cows, that sexually go after young calves, so it happens in nature. However, I still know it is wrong, sometimes you just know.

Epistemologically, you don't. Knowledge requires justification. If you don't have it, you don't know. If you do have it, what is it?

Can we at least agree that a 40 year old man having sex with a nine year old boy is wrong?

Yes. But I don't agree that homosexual acts are immoral. So if your reasons for believing that a 40 year old man have sex with a nine year old body is wrong are the same as your reasons for believing that homosexual acts in general are wrong, then they are different reasons than mine, so I don't understand the relevance of showing that we agree on some conclusion when the issue here is your reasoning.

You said it is reasonable. What are you reasons? We get it, you think it's wrong.

Now why do you think that?

I am just happy we can agree on something. Can we agree that two forty year old people of the opposite sex, having sex with each other is moral ?

There isn't enough information to answer that.
teddy2013
Posts: 119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 8:49:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/29/2013 8:34:43 PM, FREEDO wrote:
It's ok. I get you. Meat me at the wall with the hole in it in 15 minutes.

Can we meet at the zoo instead, next to the giraffe area? Can you bring Drafterman with you?
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 9:12:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/29/2013 8:49:07 PM, teddy2013 wrote:
At 1/29/2013 8:34:43 PM, FREEDO wrote:
It's ok. I get you. Meat me at the wall with the hole in it in 15 minutes.

Can we meet at the zoo instead, next to the giraffe area? Can you bring Drafterman with you?

Uh oh!

http://2.bp.blogspot.com...
teddy2013
Posts: 119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 6:34:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/30/2013 3:16:04 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Do you mind if cum with you guys?

Absolutely, the more the merrier (or the more the gayer). Also, please try to get in touch with Contradiction, he can be our lookout, although, now that I think about it, the giraffes will be great lookouts.
LatentDebater
Posts: 136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 7:32:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Idiocy at its best.
I don't suffer from insanity; I enjoy every minute of it.

People who think they know everything are extremely irritating to those of us who do.

"If you believe in a god, just tell me why you don't believe in all the other gods. The reasons you give will be why I don't believe in yours." - Ricky THEGENIUS Gervais
teddy2013
Posts: 119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 7:38:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/29/2013 7:59:24 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/29/2013 7:32:00 PM, teddy2013 wrote:
Is it is reasonable for a person to conclude that two men engaging in anal intercourse is immoral? It certainly is reasonable, I would also argue that others could ponder the same question and conclude it is not immoral. For me I have concluded it is immoral, but in any event, agree or disagree, it is reasonable to draw that conclusion.

And what's the reason? You've tossed out religion and nature (neither of which were good reasons to begin with). So what is the reason for concluding that gay sex is immoral?

I will not use religion, or nature, or links to any website, to make my argument.

Put simply, in pondering the question of homosexuality, I have an innate and intuitive belief that it is immoral. All of us have drawn conclusions about things in life based on this.

For example, if you were to to see a Father constantly belittling his son in public, You may intuitively believe that it is wrong. However the Bible would say, the son should just obey the Father. Nature would show us examples where some animals shun their offspring. Their would be no law you could site, that criminalizes a parent for belittling their child. However, despite all this, you could still believe , it is morally wrong.

I respect others who ponder the same question on homosexuality, and draw different conclusions. Also, I do not personally care what two homosexuals do to each other.

In other words, two gay giraffes can do whatever they want, as long as they do not stick their necks in my business (pun intended).
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 7:46:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/30/2013 7:38:20 PM, teddy2013 wrote:
At 1/29/2013 7:59:24 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/29/2013 7:32:00 PM, teddy2013 wrote:
Is it is reasonable for a person to conclude that two men engaging in anal intercourse is immoral? It certainly is reasonable, I would also argue that others could ponder the same question and conclude it is not immoral. For me I have concluded it is immoral, but in any event, agree or disagree, it is reasonable to draw that conclusion.

And what's the reason? You've tossed out religion and nature (neither of which were good reasons to begin with). So what is the reason for concluding that gay sex is immoral?

I will not use religion, or nature, or links to any website, to make my argument.

Put simply, in pondering the question of homosexuality, I have an innate and intuitive belief that it is immoral. All of us have drawn conclusions about things in life based on this.

For example, if you were to to see a Father constantly belittling his son in public, You may intuitively believe that it is wrong. However the Bible would say, the son should just obey the Father. Nature would show us examples where some animals shun their offspring. Their would be no law you could site, that criminalizes a parent for belittling their child. However, despite all this, you could still believe , it is morally wrong.

I respect others who ponder the same question on homosexuality, and draw different conclusions. Also, I do not personally care what two homosexuals do to each other.

If you believe that homosexual acts are immoral and may lead an unrepentant person to Hell for eternity, it would be cruel to not care if people do them.

In other words, two gay giraffes can do whatever they want, as long as they do not stick their necks in my business (pun intended).

Takes necking to a whole new level.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 7:55:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Poorly formulated argument (@OP)

You have to realize that American society is not about looking out for the best interests of it's citizens, it lets citizens decide for themselves and what they think is in their best interest, you can not prove that something is in the best interest of a whole population/society because everyone has differing opinions, and what is in my best interest may not be what is in your best interest, therefore we should all be able to decide for ourselves what is in our own best interest, correct?
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 8:08:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/30/2013 7:55:37 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Poorly formulated argument (@OP)

You have to realize that American society is not about looking out for the best interests of it's citizens

False. Our government is based on the Constitution, which states that it should "promote the General Welfare."
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
teddy2013
Posts: 119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 8:09:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/30/2013 7:55:37 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Poorly formulated argument (@OP)

You have to realize that American society is not about looking out for the best interests of it's citizens, it lets citizens decide for themselves and what they think is in their best interest, you can not prove that something is in the best interest of a whole population/society because everyone has differing opinions, and what is in my best interest may not be what is in your best interest, therefore we should all be able to decide for ourselves what is in our own best interest, correct?

Good point, however I am not attempting to say that I should decide for others what is in their best interest. I am just expressing one of those opinions, you talked about, and explaining how I formed my opinion. Also, I have always wanted to do a thread about giraffes, and they gave me an opportunity to do that.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 8:10:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/30/2013 8:08:04 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/30/2013 7:55:37 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Poorly formulated argument (@OP)

You have to realize that American society is not about looking out for the best interests of it's citizens

False. Our government is based on the Constitution, which states that it should "promote the General Welfare."

Fair enough, but it can only promote the general welfare to the point of not defying the amendments or the basic articles of the constitution, right?

Not giving certain groups of people equal rights so not to defend others is in defiance of the amendments and constitution, right?
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 8:26:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/30/2013 8:10:29 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 1/30/2013 8:08:04 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/30/2013 7:55:37 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Poorly formulated argument (@OP)

You have to realize that American society is not about looking out for the best interests of it's citizens

False. Our government is based on the Constitution, which states that it should "promote the General Welfare."

Fair enough, but it can only promote the general welfare to the point of not defying the amendments or the basic articles of the constitution, right?

Not giving certain groups of people equal rights so not to defend others is in defiance of the amendments and constitution, right?

The sole purpose of government is to look out for the best interests of it's citizens. Of course, there is a limit on it, as you pointed out.

By the way, the government is (or should be) blind to classifications of people. For example, the government should not recognize a person's sexual orientation, color of skin, ethnicity, etc. as far as legislation is concerned.

People are people.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 8:31:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/30/2013 8:26:08 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/30/2013 8:10:29 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 1/30/2013 8:08:04 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/30/2013 7:55:37 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Poorly formulated argument (@OP)

You have to realize that American society is not about looking out for the best interests of it's citizens

False. Our government is based on the Constitution, which states that it should "promote the General Welfare."

Fair enough, but it can only promote the general welfare to the point of not defying the amendments or the basic articles of the constitution, right?

Not giving certain groups of people equal rights so not to defend others is in defiance of the amendments and constitution, right?

The sole purpose of government is to look out for the best interests of it's citizens. Of course, there is a limit on it, as you pointed out.

By the way, the government is (or should be) blind to classifications of people. For example, the government should not recognize a person's sexual orientation, color of skin, ethnicity, etc. as far as legislation is concerned.

People are people.

Right, my sole point was that you can't always do what's in the best interest of the people, or the gov't could say "No one needs more then $40,000 a year, let's tax all individuals making above this to the point where they will be making this much or less, this will promote the welfare of those originally making less than the above amount", obviously absurd, but not to some people.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 8:33:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/30/2013 8:09:28 PM, teddy2013 wrote:
At 1/30/2013 7:55:37 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Poorly formulated argument (@OP)

You have to realize that American society is not about looking out for the best interests of it's citizens, it lets citizens decide for themselves and what they think is in their best interest, you can not prove that something is in the best interest of a whole population/society because everyone has differing opinions, and what is in my best interest may not be what is in your best interest, therefore we should all be able to decide for ourselves what is in our own best interest, correct?


Good point, however I am not attempting to say that I should decide for others what is in their best interest. I am just expressing one of those opinions, you talked about, and explaining how I formed my opinion. Also, I have always wanted to do a thread about giraffes, and they gave me an opportunity to do that.

Fair enough, but isn't your root argument that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed? If it is, my point is still relevant, no governing body should be able to decide what is in the best interest of society regarding the distribution of rights, there shouldn't be an argument on this, if you are a firm believer in the constitution and the amendments, then you should logically believe all groups of people should be given equal rights.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 11:08:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/30/2013 8:33:27 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 1/30/2013 8:09:28 PM, teddy2013 wrote:
At 1/30/2013 7:55:37 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Poorly formulated argument (@OP)

You have to realize that American society is not about looking out for the best interests of it's citizens, it lets citizens decide for themselves and what they think is in their best interest, you can not prove that something is in the best interest of a whole population/society because everyone has differing opinions, and what is in my best interest may not be what is in your best interest, therefore we should all be able to decide for ourselves what is in our own best interest, correct?


Good point, however I am not attempting to say that I should decide for others what is in their best interest. I am just expressing one of those opinions, you talked about, and explaining how I formed my opinion. Also, I have always wanted to do a thread about giraffes, and they gave me an opportunity to do that.

Fair enough, but isn't your root argument that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed? If it is, my point is still relevant, no governing body should be able to decide what is in the best interest of society regarding the distribution of rights, there shouldn't be an argument on this, if you are a firm believer in the constitution and the amendments, then you should logically believe all groups of people should be given equal rights.

Gay people have the same rights that straight people have. This is not really up for debate. The definition of marriage is what is being debated; currently, it's a legally recognized union between a man and woman. Gay people can exercise their right to marry just as straight people can.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 2:25:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/30/2013 11:08:34 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/30/2013 8:33:27 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 1/30/2013 8:09:28 PM, teddy2013 wrote:
At 1/30/2013 7:55:37 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Poorly formulated argument (@OP)

You have to realize that American society is not about looking out for the best interests of it's citizens, it lets citizens decide for themselves and what they think is in their best interest, you can not prove that something is in the best interest of a whole population/society because everyone has differing opinions, and what is in my best interest may not be what is in your best interest, therefore we should all be able to decide for ourselves what is in our own best interest, correct?


Good point, however I am not attempting to say that I should decide for others what is in their best interest. I am just expressing one of those opinions, you talked about, and explaining how I formed my opinion. Also, I have always wanted to do a thread about giraffes, and they gave me an opportunity to do that.

Fair enough, but isn't your root argument that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed? If it is, my point is still relevant, no governing body should be able to decide what is in the best interest of society regarding the distribution of rights, there shouldn't be an argument on this, if you are a firm believer in the constitution and the amendments, then you should logically believe all groups of people should be given equal rights.

Gay people have the same rights that straight people have. This is not really up for debate. The definition of marriage is what is being debated; currently, it's a legally recognized union between a man and woman. Gay people can exercise their right to marry just as straight people can.

Understandable, but when being married gives you tax breaks and helps you monetarily, it is discrimination and unfair to the LGBT group that want to be married.
teddy2013
Posts: 119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 5:07:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/30/2013 8:33:27 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 1/30/2013 8:09:28 PM, teddy2013 wrote:
At 1/30/2013 7:55:37 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Poorly formulated argument (@OP)

You have to realize that American society is not about looking out for the best interests of it's citizens, it lets citizens decide for themselves and what they think is in their best interest, you can not prove that something is in the best interest of a whole population/society because everyone has differing opinions, and what is in my best interest may not be what is in your best interest, therefore we should all be able to decide for ourselves what is in our own best interest, correct?


Good point, however I am not attempting to say that I should decide for others what is in their best interest. I am just expressing one of those opinions, you talked about, and explaining how I formed my opinion. Also, I have always wanted to do a thread about giraffes, and they gave me an opportunity to do that.

Fair enough, but isn't your root argument that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed? If it is, my point is still relevant, no governing body should be able to decide what is in the best interest of society regarding the distribution of rights, there shouldn't be an argument on this, if you are a firm believer in the constitution and the amendments, then you should logically believe all groups of people should be given equal rights.

I had intended to respond to you on this thread, I saw your post last night, before I went to bed, and have been forming my response through out the day. However I am happy to do it in a debate forum if you prefer. I see neither of us has debated before, so it should be a fair "fight". I read many of your posts and you seem very articulate. Let me know if you want the debate, and I will accept your challenge. If we do debate it would be nice to know your name. Also, can I bring my giraffes to the debate? Teddy
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 6:04:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 2:25:52 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 1/30/2013 11:08:34 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Gay people have the same rights that straight people have. This is not really up for debate. The definition of marriage is what is being debated; currently, it's a legally recognized union between a man and woman. Gay people can exercise their right to marry just as straight people can.

Understandable, but when being married gives you tax breaks and helps you monetarily, it is discrimination and unfair to the LGBT group that want to be married.

It isn't discrimination and unfair to the LGBT group that wants to be married. If they want to the tax breaks and monetary help that comes with marriage, then why don't they get married?!
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...