Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Backwardz?

mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 7:18:18 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 7:07:33 AM, theLwerd wrote:
http://www.thehighdefinite.com...

And actually, eliminate New Jersey from that first image.

So, what's backwardz.. are you against allowing first cousins to marry??

Or do you think it's nobody elses business?
Or do you think it is b/c they might have screwy kids?
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 7:26:57 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I actually don't have a problem with cousins marrying, but Conservatives say that allowing gay marriage will lead to inter-family marriage (and polygamy, pedophilia, etc.) ... I've seen people say, "What's next? People will want to marry their cousins?!" but the irony, of course, is that people already can legally marry their cousins though cannot marry one of the same sex.
President of DDO
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 7:52:37 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
lol, same sex cousins wouldn't have to worry about the 'screwy' kids thing
....

Yeah arguments against gay marriage are pretty weak, either boiling down to "because I/God say so" or "So what if they want to marry a turtle?"

a good (religious) friend of mine tries to argue from a Utilitarian(and kind of social darwinist) perspective that it is an evolutionary abberation, and causes all sorts of uneccessary and psychologically damaging problems to all in any way involved (hence; no adoption). Basically that our social groups are set up around Man&Woman, and that that ought to be encouraged as it leads to the best outcome, whilst ManMan or WomWom should not.

I don't think this quite cuts it as Gays are not evolutionary abberations, but are regularly occurring, and are at the least, if not evolutionarily beneficial in some way, are the collateral (evolutionary) damage of having people gendered at all.

Plus I don't see why the biased M&W social group structure is necessarily derived from human nature, but could just be social convention, and anyways I don't sign up to the Utilitarian idea of the Greatest calculated good, but rather try to find that good by considering the individual 'rights' which a person ought to have, and I see no reason why gay's would be "inherently" deserving of less rights. Further I think the idea of applying the theory of Evolution to find the good/right course of action (essentially social darwinism) is a bankrupt idea, as Evolution is the process by which we got our ideas of right/wrong, not a standard by which to measure right and wrong.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 11:38:06 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
oh oh oh!! I have an argument against gay marriage!

How about the government get out of "marriage" all together? Straight and Gay? Provide civil unions to all, straight and gay. With all the "marriage" rights (taxes, visitation, yada yada yada). If people want to get "married" in the traditional sense, they can go to their church and perform the ceremony, though the government doesn't recognize anything other then if they file out a civil union paper work. There are actually several churches that support gay marriage, and would be happy to provide the ceremony if it was legal. You take the government out of the word marriage, provide everyone with equal rights and benefits under the government and leave it at that.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Frodobaggins
Posts: 602
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 11:39:34 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 11:38:06 AM, OreEle wrote:
oh oh oh!! I have an argument against gay marriage!

How about the government get out of "marriage" all together? Straight and Gay? Provide civil unions to all, straight and gay. With all the "marriage" rights (taxes, visitation, yada yada yada). If people want to get "married" in the traditional sense, they can go to their church and perform the ceremony, though the government doesn't recognize anything other then if they file out a civil union paper work. There are actually several churches that support gay marriage, and would be happy to provide the ceremony if it was legal. You take the government out of the word marriage, provide everyone with equal rights and benefits under the government and leave it at that.

That's currently my argument to separate rights and religion.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 11:41:42 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 11:38:06 AM, OreEle wrote:
oh oh oh!! I have an argument against gay marriage!

How about the government get out of "marriage" all together? Straight and Gay? Provide civil unions to all, straight and gay. With all the "marriage" rights (taxes, visitation, yada yada yada). If people want to get "married" in the traditional sense, they can go to their church and perform the ceremony, though the government doesn't recognize anything other then if they file out a civil union paper work. There are actually several churches that support gay marriage, and would be happy to provide the ceremony if it was legal. You take the government out of the word marriage, provide everyone with equal rights and benefits under the government and leave it at that.

Because most people see that as rightfully stupid. All you're doing is changing the word - why bother? Do you think it'll help if people change the name of the GOP to "sunny happy sunshine party?
Frodobaggins
Posts: 602
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 11:44:01 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 11:41:42 AM, Volkov wrote:
Because most people see that as rightfully stupid. All you're doing is changing the word - why bother? Do you think it'll help if people change the name of the GOP to "sunny happy sunshine party?

I think it would actually. And you're not just changing the word, you're separating institutions.

http://www.debate.org...
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 11:46:04 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 11:41:42 AM, Volkov wrote:

Because most people see that as rightfully stupid. All you're doing is changing the word - why bother? Do you think it'll help if people change the name of the GOP to "sunny happy sunshine party?

No all you're doing is pointing out the way the state ought to look at such problems (that is w/o religious bias), in order to simplify, and more quickly address the problem.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 11:55:01 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
If there is one thing to be learned from the religious, its that they share a lot in common with the non-religious. Marriage isn't simply a religious ceremony anymore - its something imbued by most in society as the ultimate commitment between two individuals. Thats why some are PO'd with "civil unions" - they want marriage and all its social and emotional consequences, not some government carbon copy. This goes for the religious, the non-religious, and everyone inbetween that supports gay marriage, or any type of marriage, to be honest.

Try to put to the population "all state-endorsed marriages are now 'civil unions," and watch them tear down your power.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 11:55:13 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 11:41:42 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 1/21/2010 11:38:06 AM, OreEle wrote:
oh oh oh!! I have an argument against gay marriage!

How about the government get out of "marriage" all together? Straight and Gay? Provide civil unions to all, straight and gay. With all the "marriage" rights (taxes, visitation, yada yada yada). If people want to get "married" in the traditional sense, they can go to their church and perform the ceremony, though the government doesn't recognize anything other then if they file out a civil union paper work. There are actually several churches that support gay marriage, and would be happy to provide the ceremony if it was legal. You take the government out of the word marriage, provide everyone with equal rights and benefits under the government and leave it at that.

Because most people see that as rightfully stupid. All you're doing is changing the word - why bother? Do you think it'll help if people change the name of the GOP to "sunny happy sunshine party?

that's what the debate is. When we argue "make marriage and civil unions have all the same legal rights" the response is "they're still different because they have different names (even though that is the only difference)!!!" so now we are giving them the same name as well, thus removing religion from politics.

Same rights, same name, yet you're still not happy?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 11:56:13 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 11:55:13 AM, OreEle wrote:
Same rights, same name, yet you're still not happy?

Refer: one page before.
Frodobaggins
Posts: 602
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 12:00:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 11:55:01 AM, Volkov wrote:
If there is one thing to be learned from the religious, its that they share a lot in common with the non-religious. Marriage isn't simply a religious ceremony anymore - its something imbued by most in society as the ultimate commitment between two individuals. Thats why some are PO'd with "civil unions" - they want marriage and all its social and emotional consequences, not some government carbon copy. This goes for the religious, the non-religious, and everyone inbetween that supports gay marriage, or any type of marriage, to be honest.

Try to put to the population "all state-endorsed marriages are now 'civil unions," and watch them tear down your power.

You just proved my point.

1. Marriage has religious connotations. It's more of a ceremony that a transferal of rights.
2. However currently rights come with marriage.

Separate Both:

1. Government must equally give all couples rights
2. Religion is allowed to either deny/allow the ceremony based upon their choosing
3. Third party forces (non religion) can create a ceremony of their choosing

Why those who are of a religion are opposed:

1. They view marriage as a religious ceremony (for them it is)
2. They view gay marriage as a government invasion of religion.

Separate the two institutions and you win. Keep them together, and it will be a losing battle.
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 12:02:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
So what about first cousins of the same sex that live in states that allow first cousins to marry but not homosexuals?

Oh, who cares, anyway? Why don't homosexual couples just go to a neighbouring state that allows same sex marriages and have their weddings there instead?
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 12:03:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 12:00:35 PM, Frodobaggins wrote:
Separate the two institutions and you win. Keep them together, and it will be a losing battle.

As I said, if you bring to the population, you're going to get a swift kick in the arse, guaranteed.

And no, I didn't prove your point - I said nothing about rights. If I wanted to, this would be a completely different discussion. You're making up your own argument. You do this quite often.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 12:04:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 12:02:52 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:
Oh, who cares, anyway? Why don't homosexual couples just go to a neighbouring state that allows same sex marriages and have their weddings there instead?

Recognition. I think some states don't recognize gay marriages performed in other states.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 12:05:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 11:55:01 AM, Volkov wrote:
If there is one thing to be learned from the religious, its that they share a lot in common with the non-religious. Marriage isn't simply a religious ceremony anymore - its something imbued by most in society as the ultimate commitment between two individuals. Thats why some are PO'd with "civil unions" - they want marriage and all its social and emotional consequences, not some government carbon copy. This goes for the religious, the non-religious, and everyone inbetween that supports gay marriage, or any type of marriage, to be honest.

Try to put to the population "all state-endorsed marriages are now 'civil unions," and watch them tear down your power.

They can still have the marriage ceremony, anyone can. And even I would disagree that the government should make sure that everyone gets the same "emotional consequences," and I support most governmental actions. Government's only obligation is that everyone is getting the legal rights and legal benefits.

"Ultimate commitment"? I don't think marriage fits in that any more (unfortunately).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Frodobaggins
Posts: 602
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 12:06:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 12:03:54 PM, Volkov wrote:
As I said, if you bring to the population, you're going to get a swift kick in the arse, guaranteed.
No logical discussion - opinion

You're making up your own argument. You do this quite often.
Ad hominem
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 12:08:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 12:04:59 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 1/21/2010 12:02:52 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:
Oh, who cares, anyway? Why don't homosexual couples just go to a neighbouring state that allows same sex marriages and have their weddings there instead?

Recognition. I think some states don't recognize gay marriages performed in other states.

This is true, if you go get married in one state but live in another, that state that you live in will not accept you filing "married" as marital status or various other benefits.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 12:12:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 12:06:21 PM, Frodobaggins wrote:
No logical discussion - opinion

I don't deny it. Its called "academic exercise" - generally what you're also doing.

Don't like it? Go suck a big one.

Ad hominem

Its the truth. What else could explain you going off about rights when I was talking about the societal implications of marriage?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 12:13:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 12:08:33 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 1/21/2010 12:04:59 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 1/21/2010 12:02:52 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:
Oh, who cares, anyway? Why don't homosexual couples just go to a neighbouring state that allows same sex marriages and have their weddings there instead?

Recognition. I think some states don't recognize gay marriages performed in other states.

This is true, if you go get married in one state but live in another, that state that you live in will not accept you filing "married" as marital status or various other benefits.

Which is why people want it done by the feds, because it will cover the entire US, no matter what.
Frodobaggins
Posts: 602
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 12:27:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 12:12:35 PM, Volkov wrote:
Don't like it? Go suck a big one.
The originality of that just blows my mind.

Ad hominem

Its the truth.
Ad Nauseam

What else could explain you going off about rights when I was talking about the societal implications of marriage?

You clearly missed my argument which was by separating rights and marriage you allow rights to be gained by all (constitutional) and allow any institution (religious or otherwise) to administer marriage.
Frodobaggins
Posts: 602
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 12:27:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 12:27:18 PM, Frodobaggins wrote:
At 1/21/2010 12:12:35 PM, Volkov wrote:
Don't like it? Go suck a big one.
The originality of that just blows my mind.
And yes, pun very much intended
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 12:37:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 12:27:18 PM, Frodobaggins wrote:
You clearly missed my argument which was by separating rights and marriage you allow rights to be gained by all (constitutional) and allow any institution (religious or otherwise) to administer marriage.

Again - not talking about rights, not talking about administration, I'm talking about society, and its view of marriage. And buddy, they aren't separate.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 12:46:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 12:37:15 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 1/21/2010 12:27:18 PM, Frodobaggins wrote:
You clearly missed my argument which was by separating rights and marriage you allow rights to be gained by all (constitutional) and allow any institution (religious or otherwise) to administer marriage.

Again - not talking about rights, not talking about administration, I'm talking about society, and its view of marriage. And buddy, they aren't separate.

And right now society seems to be saying pretty strong that it is not in favor of gay marriage. So that argument moots itself.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Frodobaggins
Posts: 602
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 12:50:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 12:37:15 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 1/21/2010 12:27:18 PM, Frodobaggins wrote:
You clearly missed my argument which was by separating rights and marriage you allow rights to be gained by all (constitutional) and allow any institution (religious or otherwise) to administer marriage.

Again - not talking about rights, not talking about administration, I'm talking about society, and its view of marriage. And buddy, they aren't separate.

Which is my point, that by separating rights from marriage you allow gay marriage to be present all across society and thus more easily accepted by society.

Protip: Using the word buddy when you clearly aren't my "buddy" is inaccurate and it kinda makes you sound like you're 50.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 12:50:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 12:46:20 PM, OreEle wrote:
And right now society seems to be saying pretty strong that it is not in favor of gay marriage. So that argument moots itself.

Actually, it isn't. There is a statistical tie on the issue itself: http://www.angus-reid.com...

I'm willing to bet support for Civil Unions is higher, because its a compromise position. However, most people that are against gay marriage and support civil unions are probably doing so on the basis that it isn't "marriage" - it doesn't have any of the emotional connotation, and keeps diminishes the respect for it, even if it has all the same rights afforded.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 12:56:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 12:50:03 PM, Frodobaggins wrote:
Which is my point, that by separating rights from marriage you allow gay marriage to be present all across society and thus more easily accepted by society.

.... Lol, you again have no idea what I'm talking about. Good job.

If it were only about "rights," then this would have been settled a long time ago. But it isn't. Its about definition, as well. And when you start granting a term for someone to all people, there will be others there that will say, "well I don't want gays to have a civil union." It happens similarly with "Jews aren't human; Blacks are a different species." People aren't always open to similarities when respect for that person/group is almost non-existent.
Frodobaggins
Posts: 602
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 1:09:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 12:56:05 PM, Volkov wrote:
.... Lol, you again have no idea what I'm talking about. Good job.
Question: If no one consistently ever understands what your point are, is everyone else stupid, or are you yourself completely unclear?

If it were only about "rights," then this would have been settled a long time ago. But it isn't. Its about definition, as well. And when you start granting a term for someone to all people, there will be others there that will say, "well I don't want gays to have a civil union." It happens similarly with "Jews aren't human; Blacks are a different species." People aren't always open to similarities when respect for that person/group is almost non-existent.

As you stated previously it isn't nonexistent, and you are ignoring the basis for that disrespect which lies in religion. Such would be saying "I don't think we should desegregate blacks because I don't think it would go over too well with everyone"

You make the change, then people adapt and change.