Total Posts:252|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Questions for 'Gay Marriage' proponents

Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 4:26:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I have some questions for any 'Gay marriage' proponents reading this thread.

One of the common principles in the pro-gay marriage arguments I have read is the claim that a person should be allowed (sic) to marry any person of any sex of their choosing.

In your opinion, should a brother be allowed to marry his brother? Should sisters be permitted to marry?

If your answer is NO... please explain the basis or reasons that you would use to deny them.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Material_Girl
Posts: 264
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 6:00:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Yes.

If people choose incest, if they choose polygamy, if they choose bestiality, let them. It's none of anyone else's business as long as no one's freedom is being infringed on.
http://commissaress.wordpress.com...

Political Compass
Economic Left: -10.00
Social Libertarian: -7.13

Yes, I am an evil godless commie.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 6:49:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 6:00:08 PM, Material_Girl wrote:
Yes.

If people choose incest, if they choose polygamy, if they choose bestiality, let them. It's none of anyone else's business as long as no one's freedom is being infringed on.

Okay - so polygamy. . .

Let's say everyone has the same right to marry more than one partner.

Some dude marries two hot blondes.

The two hot blondes decide to marry three more dudes each and maybe their own sisters too. Their sisters (having the same rights) want to marry a couple few other people too.

Should our government and society have to recognize all their unions?
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 1:54:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 4:26:46 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
I have some questions for any 'Gay marriage' proponents reading this thread.

One of the common principles in the pro-gay marriage arguments I have read is the claim that a person should be allowed (sic) to marry any person of any sex of their choosing.
Your sic is misleading, since the issue is if the government should recognize them.

In your opinion, should a brother be allowed to marry his brother? Should sisters be permitted to marry?
Yes.

If your answer is NO... please explain the basis or reasons that you would use to deny them.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 1:56:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 6:00:08 PM, Material_Girl wrote:
It's none of anyone else's business as long as no one's freedom is being infringed on.

Actually, it is our business.
Things like divorce, probate, and entitlements are all matters of public policy.

There is nothing stopping me and you from getting married, which is a private matter.
The issue is whether or not the government should recognize the union, which is a public affair.
My work here is, finally, done.
Material_Girl
Posts: 264
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 5:24:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 6:49:25 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 10/27/2014 6:00:08 PM, Material_Girl wrote:
Yes.

If people choose incest, if they choose polygamy, if they choose bestiality, let them. It's none of anyone else's business as long as no one's freedom is being infringed on.

Okay - so polygamy. . .

Let's say everyone has the same right to marry more than one partner.

Some dude marries two hot blondes.

The two hot blondes decide to marry three more dudes each and maybe their own sisters too. Their sisters (having the same rights) want to marry a couple few other people too.

Should our government and society have to recognize all their unions?

Precisely - it would be too much of a hassle for the government to recognise all these unions. So the government should stay out of all of them. That's why I support free association and want to abolish marriage (as defined as a legal institution, not a monogamous lifelong relationship between two people - these can obviously continue if people want them to) because marriage necessarily involves the restriction of some freedom that doesn't need to be restricted (that is, that doesn't infringe on the freedom of anyone else).
http://commissaress.wordpress.com...

Political Compass
Economic Left: -10.00
Social Libertarian: -7.13

Yes, I am an evil godless commie.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 3:24:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 1:54:11 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 10/27/2014 4:26:46 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
I have some questions for any 'Gay marriage' proponents reading this thread.

One of the common principles in the pro-gay marriage arguments I have read is the claim that a person should be allowed (sic) to marry any person of any sex of their choosing.
Your sic is misleading, since the issue is if the government should recognize them.

In your opinion, should a brother be allowed to marry his brother? Should sisters be permitted to marry?
Yes.

If your answer is NO... please explain the basis or reasons that you would use to deny them.

Isn't that the point I was trying to make in post #4?
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 3:41:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 5:24:43 AM, Material_Girl wrote:
At 10/27/2014 6:49:25 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 10/27/2014 6:00:08 PM, Material_Girl wrote:
Yes.

If people choose incest, if they choose polygamy, if they choose bestiality, let them. It's none of anyone else's business as long as no one's freedom is being infringed on.

Okay - so polygamy. . .

Let's say everyone has the same right to marry more than one partner.

Some dude marries two hot blondes.

The two hot blondes decide to marry three more dudes each and maybe their own sisters too. Their sisters (having the same rights) want to marry a couple few other people too.

Should our government and society have to recognize all their unions?

Precisely - it would be too much of a hassle for the government to recognise all these unions. So the government should stay out of all of them. That's why I support free association and want to abolish marriage (as defined as a legal institution, not a monogamous lifelong relationship between two people - these can obviously continue if people want them to) because marriage necessarily involves the restriction of some freedom that doesn't need to be restricted (that is, that doesn't infringe on the freedom of anyone else).

Okay, so how would you handle child custody issues? Property rights between "spouses?" Or the naturalization aspect? You know - like when an American marries someone overseas?
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 5:36:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 4:26:46 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
I have some questions for any 'Gay marriage' proponents reading this thread.

One of the common principles in the pro-gay marriage arguments I have read is the claim that a person should be allowed (sic) to marry any person of any sex of their choosing.

In your opinion, should a brother be allowed to marry his brother? Should sisters be permitted to marry?

If your answer is NO... please explain the basis or reasons that you would use to deny them.

And my question to you would be are you merely playing dumb here or is the concept of making intelligent distinctions between homosexuality and justifiably stigmatized relationships and orientations really so difficult for conservatives and heterosexists to grasp?
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 5:40:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 5:36:05 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/27/2014 4:26:46 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
I have some questions for any 'Gay marriage' proponents reading this thread.

One of the common principles in the pro-gay marriage arguments I have read is the claim that a person should be allowed (sic) to marry any person of any sex of their choosing.

In your opinion, should a brother be allowed to marry his brother? Should sisters be permitted to marry?

If your answer is NO... please explain the basis or reasons that you would use to deny them.

And my question to you would be are you merely playing dumb here or is the concept of making intelligent distinctions between homosexuality and justifiably stigmatized relationships and orientations really so difficult for conservatives and heterosexists to grasp?

Your question fails to answer mine.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Material_Girl
Posts: 264
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 6:33:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 3:41:58 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 10/28/2014 5:24:43 AM, Material_Girl wrote:
At 10/27/2014 6:49:25 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 10/27/2014 6:00:08 PM, Material_Girl wrote:
Yes.

If people choose incest, if they choose polygamy, if they choose bestiality, let them. It's none of anyone else's business as long as no one's freedom is being infringed on.

Okay - so polygamy. . .

Let's say everyone has the same right to marry more than one partner.

Some dude marries two hot blondes.

The two hot blondes decide to marry three more dudes each and maybe their own sisters too. Their sisters (having the same rights) want to marry a couple few other people too.

Should our government and society have to recognize all their unions?

Precisely - it would be too much of a hassle for the government to recognise all these unions. So the government should stay out of all of them. That's why I support free association and want to abolish marriage (as defined as a legal institution, not a monogamous lifelong relationship between two people - these can obviously continue if people want them to) because marriage necessarily involves the restriction of some freedom that doesn't need to be restricted (that is, that doesn't infringe on the freedom of anyone else).


Okay, so how would you handle child custody issues? Property rights between "spouses?" Or the naturalization aspect? You know - like when an American marries someone overseas?


This is why abolition of marriage wouldn't work in a capitalist society, but in a decentralised socialist/communist society with free movement across borders, it's another matter entirely. I could go into that if you want, but it doesn't have much to do with the topic of the thread...
http://commissaress.wordpress.com...

Political Compass
Economic Left: -10.00
Social Libertarian: -7.13

Yes, I am an evil godless commie.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 6:37:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 6:33:07 PM, Material_Girl wrote:
At 10/28/2014 3:41:58 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 10/28/2014 5:24:43 AM, Material_Girl wrote:
At 10/27/2014 6:49:25 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 10/27/2014 6:00:08 PM, Material_Girl wrote:
Yes.

If people choose incest, if they choose polygamy, if they choose bestiality, let them. It's none of anyone else's business as long as no one's freedom is being infringed on.

Okay - so polygamy. . .

Let's say everyone has the same right to marry more than one partner.

Some dude marries two hot blondes.

The two hot blondes decide to marry three more dudes each and maybe their own sisters too. Their sisters (having the same rights) want to marry a couple few other people too.

Should our government and society have to recognize all their unions?

Precisely - it would be too much of a hassle for the government to recognise all these unions. So the government should stay out of all of them. That's why I support free association and want to abolish marriage (as defined as a legal institution, not a monogamous lifelong relationship between two people - these can obviously continue if people want them to) because marriage necessarily involves the restriction of some freedom that doesn't need to be restricted (that is, that doesn't infringe on the freedom of anyone else).


Okay, so how would you handle child custody issues? Property rights between "spouses?" Or the naturalization aspect? You know - like when an American marries someone overseas?


This is why abolition of marriage wouldn't work in a capitalist society, but in a decentralised socialist/communist society with free movement across borders, it's another matter entirely. I could go into that if you want, but it doesn't have much to do with the topic of the thread...

Since we are never EVER going to have a society such as the one you described, I see no need to speculate about how marriage regulations would be affected by it.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 2:29:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 5:40:22 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 10/28/2014 5:36:05 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/27/2014 4:26:46 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
I have some questions for any 'Gay marriage' proponents reading this thread.

One of the common principles in the pro-gay marriage arguments I have read is the claim that a person should be allowed (sic) to marry any person of any sex of their choosing.

In your opinion, should a brother be allowed to marry his brother? Should sisters be permitted to marry?

If your answer is NO... please explain the basis or reasons that you would use to deny them.

And my question to you would be are you merely playing dumb here or is the concept of making intelligent distinctions between homosexuality and justifiably stigmatized relationships and orientations really so difficult for conservatives and heterosexists to grasp?


Your question fails to answer mine.

Well, I'm not interested in dignifying your question with an answer.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 4:13:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 4:26:46 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
I have some questions for any 'Gay marriage' proponents reading this thread.

One of the common principles in the pro-gay marriage arguments I have read is the claim that a person should be allowed (sic) to marry any person of any sex of their choosing.

In your opinion, should a brother be allowed to marry his brother? Should sisters be permitted to marry?

Your own premise makes your question erroneous. Gays want to marry people of the same sex, they are not arguing to marry family relations. Why you bring homosexuality into this is unknown.

As for incest, it's an extremely rare relationship, but as others in this thread have said incest may be taboo but it is not immoral. An ethics panel in Germany has reached the same conclusion [1]. There is no real reason other than the "ew" factor to criminalize incest. Although our culture finds it disturbing, incestual marriages are not unheard of, especially among royalty and the religious (Mormons).

On polygamy; because marriage has no real defining basis (other than our cultural standards) polygamy also has no reason to be criminalized. However that being said part of legally recognized marriage is benefits. How a marriage of more than two people will play out on tax day will be a challenge; also insurance companies that provide spousal care may not be obligated to cover all spouses. There would be a lot of legal work to hash out if it were legalized.

Some dude marries two hot blondes.

The two hot blondes decide to marry three more dudes each and maybe their own sisters too. Their sisters (having the same rights) want to marry a couple few other people too.

Should our government and society have to recognize all their unions?

This is a confused looked at polygamy. You say "their unions" plural, it would be a singular union. All members would be married to each other and all would have to consent to any additions to the union. If taken to the extreme a polygamous union could end up as an entire community, all members united through marriage. This would be an interesting union, but unfeasible. Everyone knows a union between two people is complicated enough, adding more just makes it that much more complicated.

Should the government recognize these taboo unions? The better question is why not. Our culture dictates no. However there is a compelling argument for legal recognition; but these unions are so rare and no one is really lobbying for the recognition of polyamorous and/or incestual marriage so we have no reason to enact legislation to change this. Does society have to recognize these unions? No, laws do not necessarily change culture. People can think these unions are taboo and wrong all they want.

[1] http://www.vocativ.com...
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 6:26:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 6:00:08 PM, Material_Girl wrote:
Yes.

If people choose incest, if they choose polygamy, if they choose bestiality, let them. It's none of anyone else's business as long as no one's freedom is being infringed on.

More hedonism-topia promotion and "We live in a moral vacuum!". We live in a society, if someone decides to play Russian roulette with self, he'll cause grief to friends and family if he has any social life, someone will have to clean the mess he made, and worst of all he will deprive society from his services unless he was completely useless to begin with.

Lets say there is a jaywalker that is listening to music while doing stuff with his smartphone. While he is about to cross the street an SUV is speeding over and hits the horn but the jaywalker didn't listen.
You have the opportunity to stop him from crossing the street, are you going to stop him and infringe on his freedom? If the answer is yes, then your principle is refuted.

I assume you also support self-marriage and countless interpersonal relationships?
Smh, as if the US have enough tax money to waste to pay people for having sex. There was a time where it was spent on something worthwhile, like promoting a probable and important social function.
Material_Girl
Posts: 264
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 7:02:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/29/2014 6:26:07 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 10/27/2014 6:00:08 PM, Material_Girl wrote:
Yes.

If people choose incest, if they choose polygamy, if they choose bestiality, let them. It's none of anyone else's business as long as no one's freedom is being infringed on.

More hedonism-topia promotion and "We live in a moral vacuum!". We live in a society, if someone decides to play Russian roulette with self, he'll cause grief to friends and family if he has any social life, someone will have to clean the mess he made, and worst of all he will deprive society from his services unless he was completely useless to begin with.

Lets say there is a jaywalker that is listening to music while doing stuff with his smartphone. While he is about to cross the street an SUV is speeding over and hits the horn but the jaywalker didn't listen.
You have the opportunity to stop him from crossing the street, are you going to stop him and infringe on his freedom? If the answer is yes, then your principle is refuted.


I was referring specifically to relationships and arguing that any and all relationships are ok as long as both/all parties consent - meaning, no one is forced into a relationship they don't want to be in and thus having their freedom infringed on - and as long as this is the case, relationships are none of anyone else's business, and should have nothing to do with the law or the state. You seem to be implying that this principle of infringement on freedoms being wrong means that it's wrong for laws to exist, but laws exist to stop anyone from being free at the expense of anyone else, and I do in fact oppose the laws that ban people from harming themselves and would much prefer the state (or soviet, or whatever lawmaking institution exists) to just educate people about risks and try to minimise potential risk.

Regarding your analogy, as a proponent of situation ethics I'm not going to say that it's immoral to infringe on someone's freedoms in every context, but I don't think that the law should do so by, for instance, banning a drug rather than educating people about risks and regulating it to ensure that when it is necessary to infringe on someone's freedoms or to stop them from infringing on those of others. And anyway, the analogy doesn't involve me being free at the expense of the jaywalker's freedom, nor does it involve a conscious choice on their part to cross the street and risk their life.

I assume you also support self-marriage and countless interpersonal relationships?
Smh, as if the US have enough tax money to waste to pay people for having sex. There was a time where it was spent on something worthwhile, like promoting a probable and important social function.

Technically I want to abolish marriage altogether.
http://commissaress.wordpress.com...

Political Compass
Economic Left: -10.00
Social Libertarian: -7.13

Yes, I am an evil godless commie.
paininthenuts
Posts: 161
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 4:47:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 6:00:08 PM, Material_Girl wrote:
Yes.

If people choose incest, if they choose polygamy, if they choose bestiality, let them. It's none of anyone else's business as long as no one's freedom is being infringed on.

Answers like that are a good reason why Liberals shouldn't be let near politics. My son is exactly the same. His philosophy is that people should be allowed to do what they want and there is no room for traditional values, morality or mature thinking in the modern world.

Gay marriage is an oxymoron. The definition of marriage is the union between a man and a woman, not a horse, not a pig, a car, a washing machine, and especially not a person from the same sex. If two blokes that enjoy travelling up the chocolate escalator want to live together, that's up to them, but giving them right to marry is farcical.
paininthenuts
Posts: 161
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 4:48:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 6:17:52 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/27/2014 6:00:08 PM, Material_Girl wrote:

if they choose bestiality

Cows can't consent.

But 10 year old children can, that doesn't make it right either
Material_Girl
Posts: 264
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 5:51:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/30/2014 4:47:37 AM, paininthenuts wrote:
At 10/27/2014 6:00:08 PM, Material_Girl wrote:
Yes.

If people choose incest, if they choose polygamy, if they choose bestiality, let them. It's none of anyone else's business as long as no one's freedom is being infringed on.

Answers like that are a good reason why Liberals shouldn't be let near politics. My son is exactly the same. His philosophy is that people should be allowed to do what they want and there is no room for traditional values, morality or mature thinking in the modern world.

I'm no liberal, but I can certainly see why your son would say that. "Traditional values," are nothing more than a hindrance in modern society. Values must adapt to ever-changing material conditions, not be stuck in the past. We can learn from the past, sure, but trying to replicate it just won't work. I'm not opposing morality altogether, just saying that when someone wants to do something that isn't going to hurt anyone, no one has the right to force their morals onto them. Objective moral codes don't exist to be straitjackets, but to protect the freedoms of others. It's funny that you on the political right claim to be individualists and value "small government," while wanting the law to tell people who they can't marry and what they can't do with their bodies.

Gay marriage is an oxymoron. The definition of marriage is the union between a man and a woman, not a horse, not a pig, a car, a washing machine, and especially not a person from the same sex. If two blokes that enjoy travelling up the chocolate escalator want to live together, that's up to them, but giving them right to marry is farcical.

I don't see how marriage can be defined in that way. If marriage is something done for love, which is what most people now consider it to be, it should be available for anyone who loves anyone else. Allowing a man and a woman to marry, but not giving equal rights to two men or two women who want to marry, implies that the relationships of the latter two pairs have less value and are "unworthy," of legal bondage.
http://commissaress.wordpress.com...

Political Compass
Economic Left: -10.00
Social Libertarian: -7.13

Yes, I am an evil godless commie.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 6:56:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/30/2014 5:51:50 AM, Material_Girl wrote:
At 10/30/2014 4:47:37 AM, paininthenuts wrote:
At 10/27/2014 6:00:08 PM, Material_Girl wrote:
Yes.

If people choose incest, if they choose polygamy, if they choose bestiality, let them. It's none of anyone else's business as long as no one's freedom is being infringed on.

Answers like that are a good reason why Liberals shouldn't be let near politics. My son is exactly the same. His philosophy is that people should be allowed to do what they want and there is no room for traditional values, morality or mature thinking in the modern world.

I'm no liberal, but I can certainly see why your son would say that. "Traditional values," are nothing more than a hindrance in modern society. Values must adapt to ever-changing material conditions, not be stuck in the past. We can learn from the past, sure, but trying to replicate it just won't work. I'm not opposing morality altogether, just saying that when someone wants to do something that isn't going to hurt anyone, no one has the right to force their morals onto them. Objective moral codes don't exist to be straitjackets, but to protect the freedoms of others. It's funny that you on the political right claim to be individualists and value "small government," while wanting the law to tell people who they can't marry and what they can't do with their bodies.

Gay marriage is an oxymoron. The definition of marriage is the union between a man and a woman, not a horse, not a pig, a car, a washing machine, and especially not a person from the same sex. If two blokes that enjoy travelling up the chocolate escalator want to live together, that's up to them, but giving them right to marry is farcical.

I don't see how marriage can be defined in that way. If marriage is something done for love, which is what most people now consider it to be, it should be available for anyone who loves anyone else. Allowing a man and a woman to marry, but not giving equal rights to two men or two women who want to marry, implies that the relationships of the latter two pairs have less value and are "unworthy," of legal bondage.

I completely agree with what your're saying. I'd like to ask, though, do you consider marriage to be a 'good thing'? It seems to me that it would be better if it didn't really exist, although maybe there would need to be other changes to society to facilitate that one.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 7:00:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 4:26:46 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
I have some questions for any 'Gay marriage' proponents reading this thread.

One of the common principles in the pro-gay marriage arguments I have read is the claim that a person should be allowed (sic) to marry any person of any sex of their choosing.

In your opinion, should a brother be allowed to marry his brother? Should sisters be permitted to marry?

I am on the fence here, but for different reasons. Since society values the family unit, and permitting siblings etc to marry may be destructive. The evidence isn't quite compelling, but not much research has been done.

However, IF we didn't have that consideration (such as we don't with same-sex marriage), then I don't have anything against incest.

If your answer is NO... please explain the basis or reasons that you would use to deny them.
paininthenuts
Posts: 161
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 10:30:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago

Answers like that are a good reason why Liberals shouldn't be let near politics. My son is exactly the same. His philosophy is that people should be allowed to do what they want and there is no room for traditional values, morality or mature thinking in the modern world.

I'm no liberal, but I can certainly see why your son would say that. "Traditional values," are nothing more than a hindrance in modern society. Values must adapt to ever-changing material conditions, not be stuck in the past. We can learn from the past, sure, but trying to replicate it just won't work.

But you say your not a liberal, LOL
Material_Girl
Posts: 264
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 11:46:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/30/2014 6:56:00 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 10/30/2014 5:51:50 AM, Material_Girl wrote:
At 10/30/2014 4:47:37 AM, paininthenuts wrote:
At 10/27/2014 6:00:08 PM, Material_Girl wrote:
Yes.

If people choose incest, if they choose polygamy, if they choose bestiality, let them. It's none of anyone else's business as long as no one's freedom is being infringed on.

Answers like that are a good reason why Liberals shouldn't be let near politics. My son is exactly the same. His philosophy is that people should be allowed to do what they want and there is no room for traditional values, morality or mature thinking in the modern world.

I'm no liberal, but I can certainly see why your son would say that. "Traditional values," are nothing more than a hindrance in modern society. Values must adapt to ever-changing material conditions, not be stuck in the past. We can learn from the past, sure, but trying to replicate it just won't work. I'm not opposing morality altogether, just saying that when someone wants to do something that isn't going to hurt anyone, no one has the right to force their morals onto them. Objective moral codes don't exist to be straitjackets, but to protect the freedoms of others. It's funny that you on the political right claim to be individualists and value "small government," while wanting the law to tell people who they can't marry and what they can't do with their bodies.

Gay marriage is an oxymoron. The definition of marriage is the union between a man and a woman, not a horse, not a pig, a car, a washing machine, and especially not a person from the same sex. If two blokes that enjoy travelling up the chocolate escalator want to live together, that's up to them, but giving them right to marry is farcical.

I don't see how marriage can be defined in that way. If marriage is something done for love, which is what most people now consider it to be, it should be available for anyone who loves anyone else. Allowing a man and a woman to marry, but not giving equal rights to two men or two women who want to marry, implies that the relationships of the latter two pairs have less value and are "unworthy," of legal bondage.

I completely agree with what your're saying. I'd like to ask, though, do you consider marriage to be a 'good thing'? It seems to me that it would be better if it didn't really exist, although maybe there would need to be other changes to society to facilitate that one.

I agree. I eventually want marriage to go the same way as the state, private property, gender roles, the family, etc. But abolishing marriage and having free association in a statist society would be hard.
http://commissaress.wordpress.com...

Political Compass
Economic Left: -10.00
Social Libertarian: -7.13

Yes, I am an evil godless commie.
Material_Girl
Posts: 264
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 11:47:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/30/2014 10:30:06 AM, paininthenuts wrote:

Answers like that are a good reason why Liberals shouldn't be let near politics. My son is exactly the same. His philosophy is that people should be allowed to do what they want and there is no room for traditional values, morality or mature thinking in the modern world.

I'm no liberal, but I can certainly see why your son would say that. "Traditional values," are nothing more than a hindrance in modern society. Values must adapt to ever-changing material conditions, not be stuck in the past. We can learn from the past, sure, but trying to replicate it just won't work.

But you say your not a liberal, LOL

No, I'm not a liberal. I'm a communist.
http://commissaress.wordpress.com...

Political Compass
Economic Left: -10.00
Social Libertarian: -7.13

Yes, I am an evil godless commie.
RevNge
Posts: 13,835
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 12:09:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/30/2014 11:47:29 AM, Material_Girl wrote:
At 10/30/2014 10:30:06 AM, paininthenuts wrote:

Answers like that are a good reason why Liberals shouldn't be let near politics. My son is exactly the same. His philosophy is that people should be allowed to do what they want and there is no room for traditional values, morality or mature thinking in the modern world.

I'm no liberal, but I can certainly see why your son would say that. "Traditional values," are nothing more than a hindrance in modern society. Values must adapt to ever-changing material conditions, not be stuck in the past. We can learn from the past, sure, but trying to replicate it just won't work.

But you say your not a liberal, LOL

No, I'm not a liberal. I'm a communist.

http://www.reactiongifs.com...
paininthenuts
Posts: 161
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 12:32:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/30/2014 11:47:29 AM, Material_Girl wrote:
At 10/30/2014 10:30:06 AM, paininthenuts wrote:

Answers like that are a good reason why Liberals shouldn't be let near politics. My son is exactly the same. His philosophy is that people should be allowed to do what they want and there is no room for traditional values, morality or mature thinking in the modern world.

I'm no liberal, but I can certainly see why your son would say that. "Traditional values," are nothing more than a hindrance in modern society. Values must adapt to ever-changing material conditions, not be stuck in the past. We can learn from the past, sure, but trying to replicate it just won't work.

But you say your not a liberal, LOL

No, I'm not a liberal. I'm a communist.

I seriously think you need to get the dictionary out. Liberalism and communism are from different spectrums. In a communist society you are told what to eat, drink, think and say. Liberals believe in doing what ever they want regardless of the opinions of others.

Your definitely a liberal, even if you don't like the idea of some people having more money than others.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 12:55:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/30/2014 11:46:37 AM, Material_Girl wrote:
I agree. I eventually want marriage to go the same way as the state, private property, gender roles, the family, etc. But abolishing marriage and having free association in a statist society would be hard.
No, I'm not a liberal. I'm a communist.

You're great.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 3:18:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/29/2014 2:29:24 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/28/2014 5:40:22 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 10/28/2014 5:36:05 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/27/2014 4:26:46 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
I have some questions for any 'Gay marriage' proponents reading this thread.

One of the common principles in the pro-gay marriage arguments I have read is the claim that a person should be allowed (sic) to marry any person of any sex of their choosing.

In your opinion, should a brother be allowed to marry his brother? Should sisters be permitted to marry?

If your answer is NO... please explain the basis or reasons that you would use to deny them.

And my question to you would be are you merely playing dumb here or is the concept of making intelligent distinctions between homosexuality and justifiably stigmatized relationships and orientations really so difficult for conservatives and heterosexists to grasp?


Your question fails to answer mine.

Well, I'm not interested in dignifying your question with an answer.

No sweat off mine.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 3:38:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/29/2014 4:13:19 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 10/27/2014 4:26:46 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
I have some questions for any 'Gay marriage' proponents reading this thread.

One of the common principles in the pro-gay marriage arguments I have read is the claim that a person should be allowed (sic) to marry any person of any sex of their choosing.

In your opinion, should a brother be allowed to marry his brother? Should sisters be permitted to marry one another?

Your own premise makes your question erroneous.

W#hat premise have I presented?

Gays want to marry people of the same sex, they are not arguing to marry family relations. Why you bring homosexuality into this is unknown.

I understand that gays aren't necessarily fighting for the right to marry a family member (maybe some are - I dun't know) but my question wasn't intended to imply that.

I'm trying to find the point at which Gay marriage proponents will agree that our Government has the right to decide (define) what it will and will not recognize as a legal 'marriage.'

As for incest, it's an extremely rare relationship, but as others in this thread have said incest may be taboo but it is not immoral. An ethics panel in Germany has reached the same conclusion [1]. There is no real reason other than the "ew" factor to criminalize incest. Although our culture finds it disturbing, incestual marriages are not unheard of, especially among royalty and the religious (Mormons).

Yeah, my question has nothing to do with incest. The proponents of gay marriage are very quick to point out that marriage is not defined by sex. That there are plenty of married couples who are celibate and the like and I am granting them that point.

So, I'll ask my question again and in a different way. . . "What about two brothers who may or may not even be gay?" They may have many other reasons for wanting the benefits of being 'married.'

Would 'gay marriage' supporters support that? Or, would they agree that our government has the right to NOT recognize such unions. Also, what would the arguments be for NOT recognizing their 'marriage?'

On polygamy; because marriage has no real defining basis (other than our cultural standards) polygamy also has no reason to be criminalized. However that being said part of legally recognized marriage is benefits. How a marriage of more than two people will play out on tax day will be a challenge; also insurance companies that provide spousal care may not be obligated to cover all spouses. There would be a lot of legal work to hash out if it were legalized.


Okay, so what about our so called RIGHT to marry as many people as we may want to?

Some dude marries two hot blondes.

The two hot blondes decide to marry three more dudes each and maybe their own sisters too. Their sisters (having the same rights) want to marry a couple few other people too.

Should our government and society have to recognize all their unions?

This is a confused looked at polygamy. You say "their unions" plural, it would be a singular union. All members would be married to each other and all would have to consent to any additions to the union.

Not necessarily. Maybe one of the two hot blondes doesn't want anymore than two spouses but the other hot blonde wants to marry a couple others on the side.

If taken to the extreme a polygamous union could end up as an entire community, all members united through marriage. This would be an interesting union, but unfeasible. Everyone knows a union between two people is complicated enough, adding more just makes it that much more complicated.


You are speaking in platitudes.

I am asking about the people's RIGHT (sic) to marry whoever they might want and as many as they want. I applaud you for trying to acknowledge the fact that lines have to be drawn somewhere. . . But you don't seem to be willing to accept the fact that our government has the right to draw those lines.

Should the government recognize these taboo unions? The better question is why not. Our culture dictates no. However there is a compelling argument for legal recognition; but these unions are so rare and no one is really lobbying for the recognition of polyamorous and/or incestual marriage so we have no reason to enact legislation to change this.

Again, platitudes.

Either we (the people) have the RIGHT to marry whoever and as many as we want to - and to have the government recognize those unions. . . Or we don't.

Does society have to recognize these unions? No, laws do not necessarily change culture. People can think these unions are taboo and wrong all they want.

[1] http://www.vocativ.com...

Could you clarify that? It looks like a contradiction.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...