Total Posts:48|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

For those who are for & against Gay Marriage

Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2013 11:26:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If he can just assert that one couple can be be denied marriage cause it is non procreative "in principle" (eg a gay couple) then I assert that an infertile couple should be denied marriage cause they can't procreate........IN PRINCIPLE.

Also sounds like an association fallacy....

Some men and women can procreate with each other and therefore are procreative in principle therefore ALL men & woman are procreative in principle.

Also smell some appeal to tradition fallacy.....

Marriage has always being about..........
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 2:04:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/30/2013 6:33:26 PM, GOP wrote:
Your opinion on Alan Keyes' argument?



His arguments would work a lot better if there were not a long history of same-sex marriages (which just happened to end at about the time Christianity saw mass adoption), as well as many types of marriage which had nothing to do with procreation (pederasty, for example). In short, his argument is bull. Of course, this was known from the point where he started to use special pleading ("in principle").
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 4:02:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 2:04:06 AM, drhead wrote:
At 7/30/2013 6:33:26 PM, GOP wrote:
Your opinion on Alan Keyes' argument?



His arguments would work a lot better if there were not a long history of same-sex marriages (which just happened to end at about the time Christianity saw mass adoption), as well as many types of marriage which had nothing to do with procreation (pederasty, for example). In short, his argument is bull. Of course, this was known from the point where he started to use special pleading ("in principle").

Pre-Christian same sex marriages? I'm interested, albeit skeptical , please share. I hope you're not conflating pederasty with marriage.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Jack212
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 4:41:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
They should just change the marriage legislation to refer to "marriage/civil union/menage a trois/other partnership". That way everybody wins. The gays can get "married", and the conservatives can refuse to recognize it as a "marriage", and neither will affect the other.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 10:17:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 4:41:50 AM, Jack212 wrote:
They should just change the marriage legislation to refer to "marriage/civil union/menage a trois/other partnership". That way everybody wins. The gays can get "married", and the conservatives can refuse to recognize it as a "marriage", and neither will affect the other.

But that's essentially a "separate but equal," argument. And I think we have enough experience in that area to know that separate is NEVER equal.
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
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 11:33:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
His argument is spot on, and is exactly what we've been saying since this whole thing started. Marriage is recognized by the government to legally attach biological parents to their children, and to each other, for life. If it weren't for the procreative aspect, there would be no reason for the state to recognize marriage at all. Since procreation requires both a male and a female, we allow all males to marry females, since we don't know which couples can reproduce and which ones have medical reasons that preclude them from doing so.

Homosexuals, on the other hand, cannot procreate with each other so there is no need for the state to recognize them when it's obvious that they cannot fulfill the same procreation aspect.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 11:40:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 10:17:46 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/31/2013 4:41:50 AM, Jack212 wrote:
They should just change the marriage legislation to refer to "marriage/civil union/menage a trois/other partnership". That way everybody wins. The gays can get "married", and the conservatives can refuse to recognize it as a "marriage", and neither will affect the other.

But that's essentially a "separate but equal," argument. And I think we have enough experience in that area to know that separate is NEVER equal.

Homosexual will never equal heterosexual, in the aspects of marriage and family. Things that are not and can never be equal should not be treated as such.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 11:43:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 11:40:18 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 7/31/2013 10:17:46 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/31/2013 4:41:50 AM, Jack212 wrote:
They should just change the marriage legislation to refer to "marriage/civil union/menage a trois/other partnership". That way everybody wins. The gays can get "married", and the conservatives can refuse to recognize it as a "marriage", and neither will affect the other.

But that's essentially a "separate but equal," argument. And I think we have enough experience in that area to know that separate is NEVER equal.

Homosexual will never equal heterosexual, in the aspects of marriage and family. Things that are not and can never be equal should not be treated as such.

Why did you even bother replying to me, mate?

Like seriously though, was that supposed to convince me? "Gee, medic's right. Homosexuals are subhuman and undeserving of the same treatment as heterosexuals. Guess I should go beat the sh1t out of a couple of f@gs and join the WBC now."
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
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 11:59:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 4:02:59 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 7/31/2013 2:04:06 AM, drhead wrote:
At 7/30/2013 6:33:26 PM, GOP wrote:
Your opinion on Alan Keyes' argument?



His arguments would work a lot better if there were not a long history of same-sex marriages (which just happened to end at about the time Christianity saw mass adoption), as well as many types of marriage which had nothing to do with procreation (pederasty, for example). In short, his argument is bull. Of course, this was known from the point where he started to use special pleading ("in principle").

Pre-Christian same sex marriages? I'm interested, albeit skeptical , please share. I hope you're not conflating pederasty with marriage.

Same-sex unions were recognized in Mesopotamia, Greece, Rome, China, and at some times in European history, and these continued until Christianity was adopted by the Romans. They then adopted Theodosian Code 9.7.3 in 342 AD, which outlawed same-sex marriage and, of course, ordered the execution of people in a same-sex marriage.

There were known marital practices and rituals in Mesopotamia. In Assyria, nobody saw anything wrong with homosexuality, in fact, ancient Assyrian religious texts have prayers for divine blessings on homosexual relationships. China also had same-sex domestic partnerships in certain regions (things varied a lot). Some had religious ceremonies, some didn't, but all were approved of. Native American societies have had same-sex unions where male members decide to take on a female role.

Ultimately, what caused same-sex unions to decline was Christianity trying to take over marriage.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 12:31:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 11:43:03 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/31/2013 11:40:18 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 7/31/2013 10:17:46 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/31/2013 4:41:50 AM, Jack212 wrote:
They should just change the marriage legislation to refer to "marriage/civil union/menage a trois/other partnership". That way everybody wins. The gays can get "married", and the conservatives can refuse to recognize it as a "marriage", and neither will affect the other.

But that's essentially a "separate but equal," argument. And I think we have enough experience in that area to know that separate is NEVER equal.

Homosexual will never equal heterosexual, in the aspects of marriage and family. Things that are not and can never be equal should not be treated as such.

Why did you even bother replying to me, mate?

I would have responded to anyone who brought up that separate is not equal argument, in the same way.

Like seriously though, was that supposed to convince me? "Gee, medic's right. Homosexuals are subhuman and undeserving of the same treatment as heterosexuals. Guess I should go beat the sh1t out of a couple of f@gs and join the WBC now."

Sorry bub, I didn't get the memo that said DN could post fallacious arguments but no one can respond unless they agree with him.
Jack212
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 2:40:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 10:17:46 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/31/2013 4:41:50 AM, Jack212 wrote:
They should just change the marriage legislation to refer to "marriage/civil union/menage a trois/other partnership". That way everybody wins. The gays can get "married", and the conservatives can refuse to recognize it as a "marriage", and neither will affect the other.

But that's essentially a "separate but equal," argument. And I think we have enough experience in that area to know that separate is NEVER equal.

Nope. All those synonyms for "marriage" would have the same legal meaning (aside from menage a trois, that one was a joke) and therefore afford all couples the same rights. It's just a matter of whether you respect other people's choice to say that they're "married". Not doing so would be no worse than not respecting somebody's wish to not be called "queer".
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 3:44:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 2:40:12 PM, Jack212 wrote:
At 7/31/2013 10:17:46 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/31/2013 4:41:50 AM, Jack212 wrote:
They should just change the marriage legislation to refer to "marriage/civil union/menage a trois/other partnership". That way everybody wins. The gays can get "married", and the conservatives can refuse to recognize it as a "marriage", and neither will affect the other.

But that's essentially a "separate but equal," argument. And I think we have enough experience in that area to know that separate is NEVER equal.

Nope. All those synonyms for "marriage" would have the same legal meaning (aside from menage a trois, that one was a joke) and therefore afford all couples the same rights. It's just a matter of whether you respect other people's choice to say that they're "married". Not doing so would be no worse than not respecting somebody's wish to not be called "queer".

What? The whole desire to call it anything other than marriage is derived from the wishes of people who, guess what, AREN'T homosexual or bisexual etc. Calling it anything else is pretty much just like saying that we need to respect people's rights to not let same sex people be married.

Honestly, the legal status is irrelevant. Calling it anything other than marriage implies that that union is different than marriage, and the whole point of the SSM movement is that SSMs are no different than opposite-sex marriages, and should be treated as such.
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
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 4:28:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 11:33:45 AM, medic0506 wrote:
His argument is spot on, and is exactly what we've been saying since this whole thing started. Marriage is recognized by the government to legally attach biological parents to their children, and to each other, for life. If it weren't for the procreative aspect, there would be no reason for the state to recognize marriage at all. Since procreation requires both a male and a female, we allow all males to marry females, since we don't know which couples can reproduce and which ones have medical reasons that preclude them from doing so.

Homosexuals, on the other hand, cannot procreate with each other so there is no need for the state to recognize them when it's obvious that they cannot fulfill the same procreation aspect.

The purpose of legal marriage is not to incentivize procreation. That will happen either way, with or without legally recognized marriage. The purpose of legal marriage is to incentivize stability, so the children, once there, can grow up in a stable home. To deny homosexuals that same incentive is to deny the children they adopt the same incentivized stability.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
llamainmypocket
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 4:46:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/30/2013 6:33:26 PM, GOP wrote:
Your opinion on Alan Keyes' argument?



I think it's a decent argument.

It's not my argument. Mine is simply that marriage is a thing which is defined by society. Society defines marriage as a civil union between a man and a women. Discrimination is the act of treating others unfairly. Homosexuals are in fact being treated fairly because they don't meet the necessary criteria for marriage which is defined by society.

There's is no discrimination here. Gay marriage is just a logical fallacy to force a political ideology on those who are unwilling. Let gays make their own kind of union.

Despite appearances, my stance isn't a strong stance against gay marriage. It's a strong stance that society must choose the meaning of marriage. I would have the same conclusion for what constitutes a proper beer. That's not to say I have no opinion but I don't use then as an argument.
llamainmypocket
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 4:49:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 4:41:50 AM, Jack212 wrote:
They should just change the marriage legislation to refer to "marriage/civil union/menage a trois/other partnership". That way everybody wins. The gays can get "married", and the conservatives can refuse to recognize it as a "marriage", and neither will affect the other.

I'm not opposed to this if it looks and acts like marriage but isn't called marriage.

I would disagree that everyone wins. There is a group that wants to harm homosexuals and another that wants to harm society. Both would be losers in such a situation.
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 4:49:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 4:46:01 PM, llamainmypocket wrote:
At 7/30/2013 6:33:26 PM, GOP wrote:
Your opinion on Alan Keyes' argument?



I think it's a decent argument.

It's not my argument. Mine is simply that marriage is a thing which is defined by society. Society defines marriage as a civil union between a man and a women. Discrimination is the act of treating others unfairly. Homosexuals are in fact being treated fairly because they don't meet the necessary criteria for marriage which is defined by society.

There's is no discrimination here. Gay marriage is just a logical fallacy to force a political ideology on those who are unwilling. Let gays make their own kind of union.

Despite appearances, my stance isn't a strong stance against gay marriage. It's a strong stance that society must choose the meaning of marriage. I would have the same conclusion for what constitutes a proper beer. That's not to say I have no opinion but I don't use then as an argument.

So if the majority of society saw marriage between two people of the same sex as acceptable, would you support gay marriage?
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 4:56:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The fact that we are starting to develop artificial wombs defeats his argument hands down.
llamainmypocket
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 5:02:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 4:49:43 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 7/31/2013 4:46:01 PM, llamainmypocket wrote:
At 7/30/2013 6:33:26 PM, GOP wrote:
Your opinion on Alan Keyes' argument?



I think it's a decent argument.

It's not my argument. Mine is simply that marriage is a thing which is defined by society. Society defines marriage as a civil union between a man and a women. Discrimination is the act of treating others unfairly. Homosexuals are in fact being treated fairly because they don't meet the necessary criteria for marriage which is defined by society.

There's is no discrimination here. Gay marriage is just a logical fallacy to force a political ideology on those who are unwilling. Let gays make their own kind of union.

Despite appearances, my stance isn't a strong stance against gay marriage. It's a strong stance that society must choose the meaning of marriage. I would have the same conclusion for what constitutes a proper beer. That's not to say I have no opinion but I don't use then as an argument.

So if the majority of society saw marriage between two people of the same sex as acceptable, would you support gay marriage?

Oh I don't know. It depends on if the meaning of society equates to a majority. It also depends on the meaning of support. What I do support is society making that choice. That doesn't necessarily lead to being happy with the choice but I wouldn't argue against it. I would just think, society is full of heathens. :-)

I suspect that you have some sort of statistic to whip out and a good point is the reason for your inquiry but I think I said what I meant.
Jack212
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 5:33:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 3:44:09 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/31/2013 2:40:12 PM, Jack212 wrote:
At 7/31/2013 10:17:46 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/31/2013 4:41:50 AM, Jack212 wrote:
They should just change the marriage legislation to refer to "marriage/civil union/menage a trois/other partnership". That way everybody wins. The gays can get "married", and the conservatives can refuse to recognize it as a "marriage", and neither will affect the other.

But that's essentially a "separate but equal," argument. And I think we have enough experience in that area to know that separate is NEVER equal.

Nope. All those synonyms for "marriage" would have the same legal meaning (aside from menage a trois, that one was a joke) and therefore afford all couples the same rights. It's just a matter of whether you respect other people's choice to say that they're "married". Not doing so would be no worse than not respecting somebody's wish to not be called "queer".

What? The whole desire to call it anything other than marriage is derived from the wishes of people who, guess what, AREN'T homosexual or bisexual etc. Calling it anything else is pretty much just like saying that we need to respect people's rights to not let same sex people be married.

Honestly, the legal status is irrelevant. Calling it anything other than marriage implies that that union is different than marriage, and the whole point of the SSM movement is that SSMs are no different than opposite-sex marriages, and should be treated as such.

What you call it is up to you. The law would recognize all terms meaning "marriage" as equal. You can have same-sex marriage, but you can't make people be okay with it. Not unless you're a freakin' Jedi or something.
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 11:56:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I dunno, but I'm amazed by how articulate this guy is.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2013 3:27:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 3:44:09 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Honestly, the legal status is irrelevant. Calling it anything other than marriage implies that that union is different than marriage, and the whole point of the SSM movement is that SSMs are no different than opposite-sex marriages, and should be treated as such.

You may be more in the know about this, but in MN, it seemed that the word marriage had everything to do with the issue. There was a local politician who proposed replacing the word marriage with civil union in every law in MN. This would be equality and no one could be upset about the word marriage.

However, there was blowback from both gay and religious groups. It seemed the word was just as important, if not more important, then the treatment.

Granted, I only know what the more vocal people say, so maybe they are misrepresenting their cause...
My work here is, finally, done.
1dustpelt
Posts: 1,970
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2013 9:08:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
But why should the government legally be able to regulate marriage at all? Marriage is not a matter to get the government involved with.
Wall of LOL
"Infanticide is justified as long as the infants are below two" ~ RoyalPaladin
"Promoting female superiority is the only way to establish equality." ~ RoyalPaladin
"Jury trials should be banned. They're nothing more than opportunities for racists to destroy lives." ~ RoyalPaladin after the Zimmerman Trial.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,248
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2013 9:32:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/1/2013 9:25:50 AM, drafterman wrote:
How can you be for and against Gay Marriage?

I think he means for those who take a side on the matter.
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2013 9:38:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/1/2013 9:08:54 AM, 1dustpelt wrote:
But why should the government legally be able to regulate marriage at all? Marriage is not a matter to get the government involved with.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2013 9:47:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/1/2013 9:08:54 AM, 1dustpelt wrote:
But why should the government legally be able to regulate marriage at all? Marriage is not a matter to get the government involved with.

Ideally.
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
8/1/2013 1:35:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/1/2013 9:08:54 AM, 1dustpelt wrote:
But why should the government legally be able to regulate marriage at all? Marriage is not a matter to get the government involved with.

See I don't understand the point of this argument. Marriage does not exist without governmental recognition - what you have in a legally inconsequential union is on par with highschool relationships. All the government is doing is taking the associations you have already voluntarily established, and using it to efficiently take census, organize, and bureaucratize. It's not a regulation; its an agreement with benefits for all parties involved.
"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
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,248
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2013 2:17:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/1/2013 9:47:32 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 8/1/2013 9:08:54 AM, 1dustpelt wrote:
But why should the government legally be able to regulate marriage at all? Marriage is not a matter to get the government involved with.

Ideally.

If marriage is to be just a contract between individuals, then I see no reason why the government is improper in recognizing and enforcing it. What I would have a problem with would be marriages which impose unaccepted obligations on third parties (as is done currently), and the government discriminating between who can and can't enter into the contract (as is done currently). That is regulation. But it's not regulation to recognize a mutually agreed upon contract between individuals. A proper marriage contract is tantamount to a business deal, and it's recognition by the government is necessary if it's to be enforced by the law.