Total Posts:67|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why are people still against gay marriage?

neptune1bond
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2014 4:51:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/5/2014 3:01:50 PM, Natec wrote:
Are there any good reasons to oppose it?

No, there really aren't.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2014 4:56:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
There are plenty of good reasons to oppose it, but it largely depends on how you define marriage, and what you believe the role of government is to marriage.

As an American, given current society, there is not much of a reason to oppose it.
My work here is, finally, done.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2014 3:40:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Are you opposed to self-marriage? Polyandry? Polygamy? Incest?
Might as well waste tax-money to reward people for...having sex, rather than encourage them to have stable heterosexual relationships before they produce kids.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2014 3:52:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/6/2014 3:40:59 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Are you opposed to self-marriage? Polyandry? Polygamy? Incest?
Might as well waste tax-money to reward people for...having sex, rather than encourage them to have stable heterosexual relationships before they produce kids.

Because a same sex marriage isn't stable?

Or that kids are the only reason for marriage?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2014 4:17:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/5/2014 3:01:50 PM, Natec wrote:
Are there any good reasons to oppose it?

No, there isn't a good reason to oppose it. These people still cling to a very archaic, inaccurate way of looking at the world.
paininthenuts
Posts: 161
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2014 4:51:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/5/2014 3:01:50 PM, Natec wrote:
Are there any good reasons to oppose it?

For a start there is another thread on the same subject running.

Secondly, the term gay marriage is an oxymoron. Marriage is the union between a man and a woman, not a man and a horse, a woman and her pet penguin, or two very spoilt lap dogs. To be honest, the society in several western countries (the U.S and U.K being two of them) have gone completely bonkers.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2014 5:26:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/6/2014 3:40:59 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Are you opposed to self-marriage? Polyandry? Polygamy? Incest?
Might as well waste tax-money to reward people for...having sex, rather than encourage them to have stable heterosexual relationships before they produce kids.

You do know that homosexual couples can produce/raise children in a stable environment just as well as any straight couple right?
Bennett91
Posts: 4,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2014 5:29:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/6/2014 4:51:58 AM, paininthenuts wrote:
At 11/5/2014 3:01:50 PM, Natec wrote:
Are there any good reasons to oppose it?

For a start there is another thread on the same subject running.

Secondly, the term gay marriage is an oxymoron. Marriage is the union between a man and a woman, not a man and a horse, a woman and her pet penguin, or two very spoilt lap dogs. To be honest, the society in several western countries (the U.S and U.K being two of them) have gone completely bonkers.

I like how you compare gay marriage to bestiality. As if homosexuals are just animals, as if human beings are just animals. It really shows how your disdain isn't based on rational, but bigotry. Very nice.

By the way, who defines what marriage is?
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2014 5:30:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/6/2014 3:52:55 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/6/2014 3:40:59 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Are you opposed to self-marriage? Polyandry? Polygamy? Incest?
Might as well waste tax-money to reward people for...having sex, rather than encourage them to have stable heterosexual relationships before they produce kids.

Because a same sex marriage isn't stable?

Or that kids are the only reason for marriage?

Guess what? Monogamous homosexual relationships aren't exactly popular in the gay community (as if you'd expect monogamy to be trending in a culture based on sexual activity).

Kids are the only reason (other than perhaps STDs) a government would care about marriage. Guess what? The law doesn't care about love. You want to love? Nobody is stopping you; you can love your family, friends, partner, or whoever you like in a romantic or non-romantic way, and you are free to declare your love. However, there is no check-box in an official document that says "In love".

An other reason I am opposed to gay marriage is that it enforces that culture that children are products (aka. borderline child trafficking industry). Putting aside that the argument that you want to marry because you expect to take other people's children is a terrible argument (so the friends of foster parents, single parents, and older siblings taking care of the younger don't deserve similar benefits because they aren't having sex?), where are the children going to come from?

Did a homosexual knock up a woman and then brought her to court to gain custody with his boyfriend and ban the mother from visiting her child?
Did they buy the egg of a pretty woman and then fly to Nigeria or India to implant the fertilized embryo on the womb of one of the breeding slaves?
Did they sue charities to put them out of business and then threaten the governor to go to the Supreme Court if a couple of orphans didn't get turned over to them regardless of priorities and trying to reconnect the child with his family?

Anyways, here is a critique on the issue of international adoption.
http://www.aljazeera.com...
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2014 5:38:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/6/2014 5:29:37 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/6/2014 4:51:58 AM, paininthenuts wrote:
At 11/5/2014 3:01:50 PM, Natec wrote:
Are there any good reasons to oppose it?

For a start there is another thread on the same subject running.

Secondly, the term gay marriage is an oxymoron. Marriage is the union between a man and a woman, not a man and a horse, a woman and her pet penguin, or two very spoilt lap dogs. To be honest, the society in several western countries (the U.S and U.K being two of them) have gone completely bonkers.

I like how you compare gay marriage to bestiality. As if homosexuals are just animals, as if human beings are just animals. It really shows how your disdain isn't based on rational, but bigotry. Very nice.

By the way, who defines what marriage is?

Webster's dictionary
Defro
Posts: 847
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2014 5:46:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/5/2014 3:01:50 PM, Natec wrote:
Are there any good reasons to oppose it?

I think deep inside, when they see gay marriages, they subconsciously think of gay sex, which they are disgusted by, and therefore they are against it, though they justify their stance by thinking up reasons.

I'm not against gay marriage, and I'm not against gay people. I'm not even against gay sex. But I still think of gay sex as a disgusting thing that I wouldn't want to do.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,337
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2014 6:24:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Perhaps a hatred toward gay couples raising unwanted children?

Indirectly, it would be a slight indictment of the traditional nuclear family falling apart.

Easier to find a scapegoat in the gay.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2014 6:28:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/6/2014 5:30:17 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 11/6/2014 3:52:55 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/6/2014 3:40:59 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Are you opposed to self-marriage? Polyandry? Polygamy? Incest?
Might as well waste tax-money to reward people for...having sex, rather than encourage them to have stable heterosexual relationships before they produce kids.

Because a same sex marriage isn't stable?

Or that kids are the only reason for marriage?

Guess what? Monogamous homosexual relationships aren't exactly popular in the gay community (as if you'd expect monogamy to be trending in a culture based on sexual activity).

If this is true then why are gay people pushing for marriage equality and then getting married? Do you know anything about gay people besides homophobic rumors and stereotypes?

Kids are the only reason (other than perhaps STDs) a government would care about marriage. Guess what? The law doesn't care about love. You want to love? Nobody is stopping you; you can love your family, friends, partner, or whoever you like in a romantic or non-romantic way, and you are free to declare your love. However, there is no check-box in an official document that says "In love".

Gay couples want to have the save privileges as straight couples for the same reasons.

An other reason I am opposed to gay marriage is that it enforces that culture that children are products (aka. borderline child trafficking industry). Putting aside that the argument that you want to marry because you expect to take other people's children is a terrible argument (so the friends of foster parents, single parents, and older siblings taking care of the younger don't deserve similar benefits because they aren't having sex?), where are the children going to come from?

How does gay marriage enforce a culture that children are products? Gays aren't stealing children. They want to adopt children. Just as hetero couples don't steal children, they can adopt. It's strange how you think homosexuality is just about gay sex. Is heterosexuality just about hetero sex? You make it sound like gays are irrational monsters that just want to steal children and destroy society. Where are the children going to come from? There are hundreds of thousands of kids who need to be adopted.

Did a homosexual knock up a woman and then brought her to court to gain custody with his boyfriend and ban the mother from visiting her child?

Gay men can sign a contract with a woman to carry their child. It's called a surrogate mother. There is no child stealing or court hearings. Lesbian couples can use invitro fertilization, so there's no need for a third party. This can all be done within the US. No slavery, no tricks, all legal.

Did they buy the egg of a pretty woman and then fly to Nigeria or India to implant the fertilized embryo on the womb of one of the breeding slaves?

See above.

Did they sue charities to put them out of business and then threaten the governor to go to the Supreme Court if a couple of orphans didn't get turned over to them regardless of priorities and trying to reconnect the child with his family?

Do you have any examples of a gay couple doing this?

Anyways, here is a critique on the issue of international adoption.
http://www.aljazeera.com...

This article is about EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS. These people are against gay marriage just like you are. What does this tell you about gay people? Nothing. The only argument here is that international adoption has problems regardless of the sexual orientation of the parents (however these agencies only cater to hetero parents soooooo what's the point you're making again?).
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2014 7:02:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/5/2014 3:01:50 PM, Natec wrote:
Are there any good reasons to oppose it?

Marriage itself is pretty heteronormative, even if gay couples are allowed to marry. It insentivizes (the only reason Goverenment sponsored marriage exists is to give tax breaks and whatnot) an "acceptable" relationship, excluding for example polyamorous persons, or persons who don't want long term relationships, or single persons, or persons who don't want their relationship defined. It basically pays people to more closely follow the ideal-normal heterosexual relationship.

It also is an invasion of privacy, and also a way for the Goverenment to have a day over one'a personal relationship (i.e. Courts deciding marriages and divorces). There's a lot of reasons to oppose gay marriage. Most of them though have to do with the problems of marriage in general.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2014 3:54:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/6/2014 6:28:57 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/6/2014 5:30:17 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 11/6/2014 3:52:55 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/6/2014 3:40:59 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Are you opposed to self-marriage? Polyandry? Polygamy? Incest?
Might as well waste tax-money to reward people for...having sex, rather than encourage them to have stable heterosexual relationships before they produce kids.

Because a same sex marriage isn't stable?

Or that kids are the only reason for marriage?

Guess what? Monogamous homosexual relationships aren't exactly popular in the gay community (as if you'd expect monogamy to be trending in a culture based on sexual activity).

If this is true then why are gay people pushing for marriage equality and then getting married? Do you know anything about gay people besides homophobic rumors and stereotypes?

Marriage equality implies that homosexuality is equivalent to heterosexuality. Do you believe that to be the case? If so, then why?
Anecdotal evidence is of little value, don't you think?

Kids are the only reason (other than perhaps STDs) a government would care about marriage. Guess what? The law doesn't care about love. You want to love? Nobody is stopping you; you can love your family, friends, partner, or whoever you like in a romantic or non-romantic way, and you are free to declare your love. However, there is no check-box in an official document that says "In love".

Gay couples want to have the save privileges as straight couples for the same reasons.

The key word is "privileges". Can you inform me what social function homosexual relationships uniquely add to society to justify investing tax money to support and encourage it?

An other reason I am opposed to gay marriage is that it enforces that culture that children are products (aka. borderline child trafficking industry). Putting aside that the argument that you want to marry because you expect to take other people's children is a terrible argument (so the friends of foster parents, single parents, and older siblings taking care of the younger don't deserve similar benefits because they aren't having sex?), where are the children going to come from?

How does gay marriage enforce a culture that children are products? Gays aren't stealing children. They want to adopt children. Just as hetero couples don't steal children, they can adopt. It's strange how you think homosexuality is just about gay sex. Is heterosexuality just about hetero sex? You make it sound like gays are irrational monsters that just want to steal children and destroy society. Where are the children going to come from? There are hundreds of thousands of kids who need to be adopted.

You are already expressing what I protested against .There is no "Right to adopt"; there is "Children's right to have a good life".
Just look at this report, you telling me this doesn't encourage the culture that children are products?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

Can you define "Homosexuality" and "Heterosexuality" for me?

Did a homosexual knock up a woman and then brought her to court to gain custody with his boyfriend and ban the mother from visiting her child?

Gay men can sign a contract with a woman to carry their child. It's called a surrogate mother. There is no child stealing or court hearings. Lesbian couples can use invitro fertilization, so there's no need for a third party. This can all be done within the US. No slavery, no tricks, all legal.

Paying women for the right to inject them with hyperovulation drugs, harvesting their eggs, paying a doctor to fertilize a bunch of those eggs with the homosexual men's sperm, rent a woman's uterus, then paying a bunch of lawyers to make sure the kids can never run away to be with one of their actual mothers... All legal.

Paying a strange man to go to a masturbate into a cup while watching porn, then paying a doctor to squirt the semen into a petri dish holding one of the lesbian's eggs, then paying a bunch of lawyers to lock down all information from the kids so they don't run away with they dads or try to reconnect with potentially dozens of half-siblings... All legal.

"Fertility treatment" implies the administration of cure. Are homosexual couples sick or have a medical condition?

Did they sue charities to put them out of business and then threaten the governor to go to the Supreme Court if a couple of orphans didn't get turned over to them regardless of priorities and trying to reconnect the child with his family?

Do you have any examples of a gay couple doing this?

Sure.

http://www.christianheadlines.com...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

Anyways, here is a critique on the issue of international adoption.
http://www.aljazeera.com...

This article is about EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS. These people are against gay marriage just like you are. What does this tell you about gay people? Nothing. The only argument here is that international adoption has problems regardless of the sexual orientation of the parents (however these agencies only cater to hetero parents soooooo what's the point you're making again?).

Just making sure the issue of adoption (which is different from foster care) isn't oversimplified.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2014 4:32:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/5/2014 3:01:50 PM, Natec wrote:
Are there any good reasons to oppose it?

I may be in a minority but I don't oppose 'gay marriage' or gay unions or homosexuality. My opposition (it you want to call it that) is to the tactics and the methods used to attempt to force the governments recognition and validation of such unions.

I believe that our Constitution (article 1, section 8) gives Congress the authority to define the requirements for marriage as it sees fit for the purposes of 'naturalization' laws and for the GENERAL welfare needs of the nation.

The proponents of Gay marriage have attempted to bypass the Congress and they are using the courts to essentially force the recognition of their unions instead.

We just had a ruling in a U.S. Court of Appeals today - that upholds the State's right to ban same sex marriages. Soon, the issue will be before the U.S. Supreme Court where I believe they will agree that Congress (the people's representatives) has the right to decide what the parameters will be.
"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: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2014 4:33:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/6/2014 4:32:27 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 11/5/2014 3:01:50 PM, Natec wrote:
Are there any good reasons to oppose it?

I may be in a minority but I don't oppose 'gay marriage' or gay unions or homosexuality. My opposition (it you want to call it that) is to the tactics and the methods used to attempt to force the governments recognition and validation of such unions.

I believe that our Constitution (article 1, section 8) gives Congress the authority to define the requirements for marriage as it sees fit for the purposes of 'naturalization' laws and for the GENERAL welfare needs of the nation.

The proponents of Gay marriage have attempted to bypass the Congress and they are using the courts to essentially force the recognition of their unions instead.

We just had a ruling in a U.S. Court of Appeals today - that upholds the State's right to ban same sex marriages. Soon, the issue will be before the U.S. Supreme Court where I believe they will agree that Congress (the people's representatives) has the right to decide what the parameters will be.

LINK: http://www.usatoday.com...
"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...
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2014 10:00:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/6/2014 5:30:17 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 11/6/2014 3:52:55 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/6/2014 3:40:59 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Are you opposed to self-marriage? Polyandry? Polygamy? Incest?
Might as well waste tax-money to reward people for...having sex, rather than encourage them to have stable heterosexual relationships before they produce kids.

Because a same sex marriage isn't stable?

Or that kids are the only reason for marriage?

Guess what? Monogamous homosexual relationships aren't exactly popular in the gay community (as if you'd expect monogamy to be trending in a culture based on sexual activity).

Just like in the heterosexual community, so moot point.

Kids are the only reason (other than perhaps STDs) a government would care about marriage. Guess what? The law doesn't care about love. You want to love? Nobody is stopping you; you can love your family, friends, partner, or whoever you like in a romantic or non-romantic way, and you are free to declare your love. However, there is no check-box in an official document that says "In love".

Again, this also applies to heterosexual, and there is no box that says 'check here indicating your desire for kids', so that makes 2 strikes.

An other reason I am opposed to gay marriage is that it enforces that culture that children are products (aka. borderline child trafficking industry). Putting aside that the argument that you want to marry because you expect to take other people's children is a terrible argument (so the friends of foster parents, single parents, and older siblings taking care of the younger don't deserve similar benefits because they aren't having sex?), where are the children going to come from?

And, again, this also can be applied to a heterosexual couple as well, so strike three and your out, thanks for playing.

Did a homosexual knock up a woman and then brought her to court to gain custody with his boyfriend and ban the mother from visiting her child?
Did they buy the egg of a pretty woman and then fly to Nigeria or India to implant the fertilized embryo on the womb of one of the breeding slaves?
Did they sue charities to put them out of business and then threaten the governor to go to the Supreme Court if a couple of orphans didn't get turned over to them regardless of priorities and trying to reconnect the child with his family?

Anyways, here is a critique on the issue of international adoption.
http://www.aljazeera.com...

Bonus non-sequitur. Yay.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2014 10:33:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/6/2014 4:33:41 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 11/6/2014 4:32:27 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 11/5/2014 3:01:50 PM, Natec wrote:
Are there any good reasons to oppose it?

I may be in a minority but I don't oppose 'gay marriage' or gay unions or homosexuality. My opposition (it you want to call it that) is to the tactics and the methods used to attempt to force the governments recognition and validation of such unions.

I believe that our Constitution (article 1, section 8) gives Congress the authority to define the requirements for marriage as it sees fit for the purposes of 'naturalization' laws and for the GENERAL welfare needs of the nation.

The proponents of Gay marriage have attempted to bypass the Congress and they are using the courts to essentially force the recognition of their unions instead.

We just had a ruling in a U.S. Court of Appeals today - that upholds the State's right to ban same sex marriages. Soon, the issue will be before the U.S. Supreme Court where I believe they will agree that Congress (the people's representatives) has the right to decide what the parameters will be.

LINK: http://www.usatoday.com...

If they weren't banned in the first place, this wouldn't be the processed used to unlift said ban. ;) Remember, the legislation came from those seeking to deny to others what they themselves have.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Bennett91
Posts: 4,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2014 10:55:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/6/2014 3:54:01 PM, Dragonfang wrote:

Marriage equality implies that homosexuality is equivalent to heterosexuality. Do you believe that to be the case? If so, then why? Anecdotal evidence is of little value, don't you think?

Yes because men and women are both equal. Therefore the sex and gender do not matter because both are equal in value.

Kids are the only reason (other than perhaps STDs) a government would care about marriage. Guess what? The law doesn't care about love. You want to love? Nobody is stopping you; you can love your family, friends, partner, or whoever you like in a romantic or non-romantic way, and you are free to declare your love. However, there is no check-box in an official document that says "In love".

Gay couples want to have the save privileges as straight couples for the same reasons.

The key word is "privileges". Can you inform me what social function homosexual relationships uniquely add to society to justify investing tax money to support and encourage it?

Homosexuals don't have to add a unique or special function to society to be seen as equal. They just have to be equal. And given that they can perform any major function a heterosexual couple can they are certainly equal and thus they deserve to be treated as such. The government should invest in gay couples for the same exact reason it invests in straight couples.

How does gay marriage enforce a culture that children are products? Gays aren't stealing children. They want to adopt children. Just as hetero couples don't steal children, they can adopt. It's strange how you think homosexuality is just about gay sex. Is heterosexuality just about hetero sex? You make it sound like gays are irrational monsters that just want to steal children and destroy society. Where are the children going to come from? There are hundreds of thousands of kids who need to be adopted.

You are already expressing what I protested against .There is no "Right to adopt"; there is "Children's right to have a good life".
Just look at this report, you telling me this doesn't encourage the culture that children are products?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

Your logic is twisted. "Children have the right to a good life" therefore adoption creates a culture of children as products? This makes no sense. You're right though, children who are already born and in the foster care system do have a right to a better life, and gay couples (along with straight couples for that matter) can adopt these kids who are in desperate need of real parents.

Your article does highlight a serious problem within the legal system and the process how people who can't have kids get them. There may be flukes where parents back out, but there are many cases where the process works and all parties walk away happy. But I'd honestly rather see couples adopt rather than go through invitro-fertilization. Help a child that's already alive rather than make another one. But humans have an innate desire to pass on their genes so it can't be helped.

Can you define "Homosexuality" and "Heterosexuality" for me?

Homosexuality: attraction to the same sex
Heterosexuality: attraction to the opposite sex

But do you want to know something funny? Those may be the basic definitions of the terms, but those terms do not define the people who prescribe to them. Although sexuality is a facet of who we are and identify as it is not the totality of who we are. In other words we are more than just who we have sex with.

Paying women for the right to inject them with hyperovulation drugs, harvesting their eggs, paying a doctor to fertilize a bunch of those eggs with the homosexual men's sperm, rent a woman's uterus, then paying a bunch of lawyers to make sure the kids can never run away to be with one of their actual mothers... All legal.

I don't think the process is that convoluted but yes, all legal. If you read that article you posted the surrogate mother herself was doing it out of empathy for those who couldn't have kids naturally. If it's all consensual then I don't see what the problem is. As for the child eventually wanting to "run away" back to the mother; this is a ridiculous notion on 2 levels. It implies that this child despite having a desire to be with his biological parent would reject the biological father and run away to live with a single mother. Would you rather have a child live in a single parent household than a dual parent one? Also psychologically a child wouldn't reject his or her parents because they are gay. A child raised at birth would love his or her care givers regardless of the sex of the parents.

Paying a strange man to go to a masturbate into a cup while watching porn, then paying a doctor to squirt the semen into a petri dish holding one of the lesbian's eggs, then paying a bunch of lawyers to lock down all information from the kids so they don't run away with they dads or try to reconnect with potentially dozens of half-siblings... All legal.

Why do you think these kids would want to run away? Is there any evidence children born under this method are running away? Sure there may be a time when these kids are older they may be curious about the other half of their biological make-up. But you assume that these kids are going to immediately reject their parents. Also I don't think you under stand the role of the sperm donor/surrogate they don't actually want the kids. They are doing it to help the couple, they do not want the kid running away to live with them. That's why there's a contract involved.

Did they sue charities to put them out of business and then threaten the governor to go to the Supreme Court if a couple of orphans didn't get turned over to them regardless of priorities and trying to reconnect the child with his family?

Do you have any examples of a gay couple doing this?

Sure.

http://www.christianheadlines.com...

These adoption agencies put ideology before the good of the children they are suppose to be helping. They'd rather have kids get "aged out" instead of allowing kids to get adopted by gay couples. What kind of organization is that? How can they claim to care about kids when they're more satisfied with spiting gays than helping children?

Don't give me any bull by trying to cite the Heritage Foundation and other christian web sites that are already biased against gays for the same ignorant reasons you are. What's next? Are you going to cite a study by Mark Regnerus that proves how bad and evil gay parents are? Please.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

AGAIN! The welfare of the child is put first. You'd rather have these kids live with their heroin addict mom or live with adults that already have trouble taking care of themselves? Even the article says that the gay couple was the best choice for the kids. So what is wrong with gay parents? Do you think they are pedophiles or something? Do you believe the myth that a child needs a mom and a dad despite evidence to the contrary? What is your reasoning?

Honestly you have no cogent arguments. I've heard all the myths and they've all been debunked. Your God is not reason enough to deny that gays are human beings just like the rest of us.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 10:12:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/6/2014 10:55:52 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/6/2014 3:54:01 PM, Dragonfang wrote:

Marriage equality implies that homosexuality is equivalent to heterosexuality. Do you believe that to be the case? If so, then why? Anecdotal evidence is of little value, don't you think?

Yes because men and women are both equal. Therefore the sex and gender do not matter because both are equal in value.

Equal in a spiritual sense that's fine and all that, but I would like an objective answer. What does biology say?
My question was regarding homosexuality and heterosexuality. Are they equal?

The key word is "privileges". Can you inform me what social function homosexual relationships uniquely add to society to justify investing tax money to support and encourage it?

Homosexuals don't have to add a unique or special function to society to be seen as equal. They just have to be equal. And given that they can perform any major function a heterosexual couple can they are certainly equal and thus they deserve to be treated as such. The government should invest in gay couples for the same exact reason it invests in straight couples.

I was speaking about homosexual relationships, please try to address the question I asked.

What are the reason the government invests in straight couples?

You are already expressing what I protested against .There is no "Right to adopt"; there is "Children's right to have a good life".
Just look at this report, you telling me this doesn't encourage the culture that children are products?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

Your logic is twisted. "Children have the right to a good life" therefore adoption creates a culture of children as products? This makes no sense. You're right though, children who are already born and in the foster care system do have a right to a better life, and gay couples (along with straight couples for that matter) can adopt these kids who are in desperate need of real parents.

Your article does highlight a serious problem within the legal system and the process how people who can't have kids get them. There may be flukes where parents back out, but there are many cases where the process works and all parties walk away happy. But I'd honestly rather see couples adopt rather than go through invitro-fertilization. Help a child that's already alive rather than make another one. But humans have an innate desire to pass on their genes so it can't be helped.

You are prioritizing the desires of adults over the rights of children, so yes that is seeing them as products. You don't have rights to other people, especially children who aren't your direct biological kin.

Homosexuals can't have kids? So their genitalia is not functioning?

Can you define "Homosexuality" and "Heterosexuality" for me?

Homosexuality: attraction to the same sex
Heterosexuality: attraction to the opposite sex

But do you want to know something funny? Those may be the basic definitions of the terms, but those terms do not define the people who prescribe to them. Although sexuality is a facet of who we are and identify as it is not the totality of who we are. In other words we are more than just who we have sex with.

So where does sex come in? If orientation has nothing to do with sexual behavior, what stops pedophiles and zoophiles from claiming equality with gays and straights? If they never get physical, what does it matter if they have or had sexual feelings toward children and animals?

I don't think the process is that convoluted but yes, all legal. If you read that article you posted the surrogate mother herself was doing it out of empathy for those who couldn't have kids naturally. If it's all consensual then I don't see what the problem is. As for the child eventually wanting to "run away" back to the mother; this is a ridiculous notion on 2 levels. It implies that this child despite having a desire to be with his biological parent would reject the biological father and run away to live with a single mother. Would you rather have a child live in a single parent household than a dual parent one? Also psychologically a child wouldn't reject his or her parents because they are gay. A child raised at birth would love his or her care givers regardless of the sex of the parents.

Oh yes, the process is that convoluted; you need to get around laws prohibiting the sell of children, and the trick of dodging maternity claims is to have multiple women involved and using them as incubators while keeping them secret.

http://metro.co.uk...

The idea of homosexual parenting is inherently selfish because it requires a biological family to break apart in order to make it possible in the first place. And that selfishness is apparent in treating children as products.

Lots of people are capable of being foster parents, and I support that. My problem is claiming ownership over children, human beings, based on arbitrary things like paying money, and denying them their heritage and origin.
http://www.nytimes.com...;

Why do you think these kids would want to run away? Is there any evidence children born under this method are running away? Sure there may be a time when these kids are older they may be curious about the other half of their biological make-up. But you assume that these kids are going to immediately reject their parents. Also I don't think you under stand the role of the sperm donor/surrogate they don't actually want the kids. They are doing it to help the couple, they do not want the kid running away to live with them. That's why there's a contract involved.

Being nonchalant about future psychological issues, learning that their father is comparable to a toothpaste tube, means that adult sexual satisfaction is prioritized over children well-being.

A child who is dependent on a same-sex couple for shelter, food, emotional support, clothing, and college tuition would never say publicly say something contradicting "I love them" where they can hear, and they probably do love them. Children recognize taboo topics and they understand why they were taboo when they grow up, now imagine them learning how they came to be. That they were a product of child slavery.

These adoption agencies put ideology before the good of the children they are suppose to be helping. They'd rather have kids get "aged out" instead of allowing kids to get adopted by gay couples. What kind of organization is that? How can they claim to care about kids when they're more satisfied with spiting gays than helping children?

Don't give me any bull by trying to cite the Heritage Foundation and other christian web sites that are already biased against gays for the same ignorant reasons you are. What's next? Are you going to cite a study by Mark Regnerus that proves how bad and evil gay parents are? Please.

Such agencies are structured around recruiting homes for children in need, that is what they are supposed to do. However, you want them to reverse their priorities and turn them into a brokerage system for couples who want kids to find them. There are long waiting lists for heterosexual couples to adopt. And if there weren't such lists, it would be the job of the professionals to recruit them.

The fact that they aren't happy merely shutting down these adoption centers out of spite, and must on top of these options go to fertility clinics demonstrates that the reasons aren't pious. It is simply imperialism, selfishness, and exploitation.

Genetic fallacy extraordinaire.
Not sure why LGBT advocates are so obsessed about Mark Regnerus.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 2:47:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/7/2014 10:12:16 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 11/6/2014 10:55:52 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
Yes because men and women are both equal. Therefore the sex and gender do not matter because both are equal in value.

Equal in a spiritual sense that's fine and all that, but I would like an objective answer. What does biology say?

My question was regarding homosexuality and heterosexuality. Are they equal?

Objectivity in regards to equality comes in many different forms. Biologically are men and women "equal"? That is a non-sense question. There may be biological differences but these differences have no implication of biological inequality. Things can be different but equal. Just as homosexual couplings can be different from hetero couplings and yet still be equal.

In what sense of equality are you asking for? Biological? Spiritual? Financial? Moral? And do any of these differences (if there are any) merit societal discrimination?

What are the reason the government invests in straight couples?

Presumably to help in child rearing. If the parents have more money it can be assumed the money that normally would have be taken through taxes would go to buying food, clothes etc. for the children.

Your article does highlight a serious problem within the legal system and the process how people who can't have kids get them. There may be flukes where parents back out, but there are many cases where the process works and all parties walk away happy. But I'd honestly rather see couples adopt rather than go through invitro-fertilization. Help a child that's already alive rather than make another one. But humans have an innate desire to pass on their genes so it can't be helped.

You are prioritizing the desires of adults over the rights of children, so yes that is seeing them as products. You don't have rights to other people, especially children who aren't your direct biological kin.

The desire of adults to care for children and the right of a child to be cared for are one in the same. Those private adoption agencies limit those children's access to prospective parents. Do you think a desperate child is going to say "No I'd rather wait till a straight couple comes along."? Sure if the kid was a homophobe (hate is learned) then maybe that might happen and the kid shouldn't go with gay parents (or maybe the kid should just to learn how utterly wrong s/he is). But I'm willing to bet the majority of children who need real parents aren't going to discriminate.

You completely ignored my "aged out" point. Do you think its better a child not be adopted than be adopted by gays?

Homosexuals can't have kids? So their genitalia is not functioning?

This is why I don't consider you an open minded person. Where did I imply that gays genitals don't function? Do you really think they're genitals don't work?

So where does sex come in? If orientation has nothing to do with sexual behavior, what stops pedophiles and zoophiles from claiming equality with gays and straights? If they never get physical, what does it matter if they have or had sexual feelings toward children and animals?

I never said orientation has nothing to do with sexual behavior, orientation defines what kind of sexual behavior one will participate in. Duh. I was saying that overall sexual orientation does not define a person. Homosexuals may have sex with each other (just as heterosexuals do) but there is more to their lives than just sex and "being gay".

Ah yes, the old "What's the difference between (bestiality/pedophilia) and homosexuality?" question. This question is very revealing of the one who asks it. First take a few minutes and ask yourself what do you think the difference is? I'll wait. Honestly ask yourself what are the major differences, if you really don't know I'll tell you in my next response.

Oh yes, the process is that convoluted; you need to get around laws prohibiting the sell of children, and the trick of dodging maternity claims is to have multiple women involved and using them as incubators while keeping them secret.

http://metro.co.uk...

There are no laws to "get around" the practice of international adoption and surrogacy is legal. That's why there are contracts involved. In order for a contract to exist all parties must be willing. And as your article suggests these Indian women are willing. I don't really understand what the problem is. If an infertile couple wants to use a third party in order to have a child why not allow all parties to come to an agreement that benefits everyone?

As I've already said, infertile couples (homo and hetero) should probably adopt an already existing child in need rather than create a new one. But then again the same argument can be made against fertile couples. What makes a fertile hetero couple's desire for a child any less of "child as a product" mentality?

The idea of homosexual parenting is inherently selfish because it requires a biological family to break apart in order to make it possible in the first place. And that selfishness is apparent in treating children as products.

Ummm what? Gays aren't breaking up families. The families are ALREADY broken by their own accord (that's how the kids end up in child services) and gay parents are picking up the pieces. This shows how twisted your logic is, gays are selfish because they want to provide the stable home life to kids that their hetero parents couldn't?

Lots of people are capable of being foster parents, and I support that. My problem is claiming ownership over children, human beings, based on arbitrary things like paying money, and denying them their heritage and origin.
http://www.nytimes.com...;

Ownership is a misnomer. Of course parents do not claim to "own" their children like property. However parents have a right to claim responsibility over their children and to keep them safe. I don't think you quite understand how the dynamic works between gay parents and their adopted children. Did you even read the article you posted? The father was talking about what you're concerned over. Kids with gay parents know they weren't conceived in the typical fashion. And gay parents don't deny that and they are willing to confront those realities. They are not cutting these kids off from their heritage or origin.

Being nonchalant about future psychological issues, learning that their father is comparable to a toothpaste tube, means that adult sexual satisfaction is prioritized over children well-being.

You assume there are going to be psychological issues and you confuse biology with sociology. If you had 2 parents that loved you and raised you well would you care how you were produced?

Why are you so obsessed with gay sex? Why do you think that just because 2 men have sex with each other they are incapable of raising a child together? Are you that ignorant? Gay people are gay, get over it. They do not want to have heterosexual sex. By your own retarded logic heterosexual couples can't raise kids because THEY put THEIR own sexual priorities over the child's well being.

A child who is dependent on a same-sex couple for shelter, food, emotional support, clothing, and college tuition would never say publicly say something contradicting "I love them" where they can hear, and they probably do love them. Children recognize taboo topics and they understand why they were taboo when they grow up, now imagine them learning how they came to be. That they were a product of child slavery.

You really don't understand how third party surrogates work, do you? How, when all parties agree and sign a contract, is it slavery? You think the child gets to have a say in its creation? DO ANY CHILDREN GET A SAY IN THEIR OWN CREATION?
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 2:48:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/6/2014 10:33:27 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/6/2014 4:33:41 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 11/6/2014 4:32:27 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 11/5/2014 3:01:50 PM, Natec wrote:
Are there any good reasons to oppose it?

I may be in a minority but I don't oppose 'gay marriage' or gay unions or homosexuality. My opposition (it you want to call it that) is to the tactics and the methods used to attempt to force the governments recognition and validation of such unions.

I believe that our Constitution (article 1, section 8) gives Congress the authority to define the requirements for marriage as it sees fit for the purposes of 'naturalization' laws and for the GENERAL welfare needs of the nation.

The proponents of Gay marriage have attempted to bypass the Congress and they are using the courts to essentially force the recognition of their unions instead.

We just had a ruling in a U.S. Court of Appeals today - that upholds the State's right to ban same sex marriages. Soon, the issue will be before the U.S. Supreme Court where I believe they will agree that Congress (the people's representatives) has the right to decide what the parameters will be.

LINK: http://www.usatoday.com...

If they weren't banned in the first place, this wouldn't be the processed used to unlift said ban. ;) Remember, the legislation came from those seeking to deny to others what they themselves have.

Marriage is not a right without parameters. It is a qualified right. That is - if you want the government to 'recognize' your marriage, you must meet the requirements
for that recognition and that applies to all of us equally.

Our government has the right to draw the lines on what it will and will not recognize as a "marriage." You may disagree with where the lines are drawn but that doesn't mean that your rights have been denied. Like I said, marriage is not an unqualified right like the right to speak freely is. Marriage is a legal construct and the requirements for its recognition are not limitless.

I'm fairly certain that this will be the very point made by the SCOTUS when they finally rule on this issue. Time will tell.
"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...
Bennett91
Posts: 4,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 2:56:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/7/2014 10:12:16 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 11/6/2014 10:55:52 PM, Bennett91 wrote:

These adoption agencies put ideology before the good of the children they are suppose to be helping. They'd rather have kids get "aged out" instead of allowing kids to get adopted by gay couples. What kind of organization is that? How can they claim to care about kids when they're more satisfied with spiting gays than helping children?

Don't give me any bull by trying to cite the Heritage Foundation and other christian web sites that are already biased against gays for the same ignorant reasons you are. What's next? Are you going to cite a study by Mark Regnerus that proves how bad and evil gay parents are? Please.

Such agencies are structured around recruiting homes for children in need, that is what they are supposed to do. However, you want them to reverse their priorities and turn them into a brokerage system for couples who want kids to find them. There are long waiting lists for heterosexual couples to adopt. And if there weren't such lists, it would be the job of the professionals to recruit them.

You contradict yourself. The priorities of these agencies is to put kids in need into homes. That's it. When they see gay couples with good homes capable of raising children just as well as any other hetero couple they reject them solely based on prejudice and homophobia. The agency violates it's own mandate and prioritizes the sex of the parents before the needs of the child.

The fact that they aren't happy merely shutting down these adoption centers out of spite, and must on top of these options go to fertility clinics demonstrates that the reasons aren't pious. It is simply imperialism, selfishness, and exploitation.

Once again your ignorance shows. You seem to think the same people who want to adopt are the same people who want 3rd party pregnancies. Perhaps BECAUSE of bigoted adoption agencies gays are forced to go through 3rd party methods. Ever thought of that?

What argument do you have as to why gays are not qualified to adopt children like a hetero couple?

Genetic fallacy extraordinaire.

Where did I make this fallacy?

Not sure why LGBT advocates are so obsessed about Mark Regnerus.

LGBT people aren't obsessed with Mark Regnerus. People like you and christian fundamentalists are obsessed with Regnerus because he publishes bullsh!t studies and tries to pass them off as scientific evidence as to why gays can't have kids.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 4:44:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/7/2014 2:48:38 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 11/6/2014 10:33:27 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/6/2014 4:33:41 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 11/6/2014 4:32:27 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 11/5/2014 3:01:50 PM, Natec wrote:
Are there any good reasons to oppose it?

I may be in a minority but I don't oppose 'gay marriage' or gay unions or homosexuality. My opposition (it you want to call it that) is to the tactics and the methods used to attempt to force the governments recognition and validation of such unions.

I believe that our Constitution (article 1, section 8) gives Congress the authority to define the requirements for marriage as it sees fit for the purposes of 'naturalization' laws and for the GENERAL welfare needs of the nation.

The proponents of Gay marriage have attempted to bypass the Congress and they are using the courts to essentially force the recognition of their unions instead.

We just had a ruling in a U.S. Court of Appeals today - that upholds the State's right to ban same sex marriages. Soon, the issue will be before the U.S. Supreme Court where I believe they will agree that Congress (the people's representatives) has the right to decide what the parameters will be.

LINK: http://www.usatoday.com...

If they weren't banned in the first place, this wouldn't be the processed used to unlift said ban. ;) Remember, the legislation came from those seeking to deny to others what they themselves have.

Marriage is not a right without parameters. It is a qualified right. That is - if you want the government to 'recognize' your marriage, you must meet the requirements
for that recognition and that applies to all of us equally.

Our government has the right to draw the lines on what it will and will not recognize as a "marriage." You may disagree with where the lines are drawn but that doesn't mean that your rights have been denied. Like I said, marriage is not an unqualified right like the right to speak freely is. Marriage is a legal construct and the requirements for its recognition are not limitless.

I'm fairly certain that this will be the very point made by the SCOTUS when they finally rule on this issue. Time will tell.

So... separate but equal.

The court ruled on that appeal in favor of letting the states decided, which ultimately is voter initiative, and as you and I both know, you can't vote away the rights of others. 'qualified' right needs to demonstrate how that right applies to one group, but not another, or how that particular right serves the common good to exist. That is why it was struck down in California: it was a law that served no good but to discriminate. The judges weren't afraid to call a spade a spade on it.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2014 11:20:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/7/2014 4:44:01 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/7/2014 2:48:38 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 11/6/2014 10:33:27 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/6/2014 4:33:41 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 11/6/2014 4:32:27 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 11/5/2014 3:01:50 PM, Natec wrote:
Are there any good reasons to oppose it?

I may be in a minority but I don't oppose 'gay marriage' or gay unions or homosexuality. My opposition (it you want to call it that) is to the tactics and the methods used to attempt to force the governments recognition and validation of such unions.

I believe that our Constitution (article 1, section 8) gives Congress the authority to define the requirements for marriage as it sees fit for the purposes of 'naturalization' laws and for the GENERAL welfare needs of the nation.

The proponents of Gay marriage have attempted to bypass the Congress and they are using the courts to essentially force the recognition of their unions instead.

We just had a ruling in a U.S. Court of Appeals today - that upholds the State's right to ban same sex marriages. Soon, the issue will be before the U.S. Supreme Court where I believe they will agree that Congress (the people's representatives) has the right to decide what the parameters will be.

LINK: http://www.usatoday.com...

If they weren't banned in the first place, this wouldn't be the processed used to unlift said ban. ;) Remember, the legislation came from those seeking to deny to others what they themselves have.

Marriage is not a right without parameters. It is a qualified right. That is - if you want the government to 'recognize' your marriage, you must meet the requirements
for that recognition and that applies to all of us equally.

Our government has the right to draw the lines on what it will and will not recognize as a "marriage." You may disagree with where the lines are drawn but that doesn't mean that your rights have been denied. Like I said, marriage is not an unqualified right like the right to speak freely is. Marriage is a legal construct and the requirements for its recognition are not limitless.

I'm fairly certain that this will be the very point made by the SCOTUS when they finally rule on this issue. Time will tell.

So... separate but equal.

The court ruled on that appeal in favor of letting the states decided, which ultimately is voter initiative, and as you and I both know, you can't vote away the rights of others. 'qualified' right needs to demonstrate how that right applies to one group, but not another, or how that particular right serves the common good to exist. That is why it was struck down in California: it was a law that served no good but to discriminate. The judges weren't afraid to call a spade a spade on it.

I believe the SCOTUS will conclude that legally defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman is not an act of discrimination against gays, polygamist or anyone else. The people through their representatives (congress) have the right to decide the unions that it will and will not recognize for what is best for the "General Welfare" of our society.

Marriage recognition only becomes a right when you meet the legal requirements to have your marriage recognized. This does not prevent any other forms of civil unions from taking place.
"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...
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2014 7:31:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/8/2014 11:20:52 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 11/7/2014 4:44:01 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/7/2014 2:48:38 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 11/6/2014 10:33:27 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/6/2014 4:33:41 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 11/6/2014 4:32:27 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 11/5/2014 3:01:50 PM, Natec wrote:
Are there any good reasons to oppose it?

I may be in a minority but I don't oppose 'gay marriage' or gay unions or homosexuality. My opposition (it you want to call it that) is to the tactics and the methods used to attempt to force the governments recognition and validation of such unions.

I believe that our Constitution (article 1, section 8) gives Congress the authority to define the requirements for marriage as it sees fit for the purposes of 'naturalization' laws and for the GENERAL welfare needs of the nation.

The proponents of Gay marriage have attempted to bypass the Congress and they are using the courts to essentially force the recognition of their unions instead.

We just had a ruling in a U.S. Court of Appeals today - that upholds the State's right to ban same sex marriages. Soon, the issue will be before the U.S. Supreme Court where I believe they will agree that Congress (the people's representatives) has the right to decide what the parameters will be.

LINK: http://www.usatoday.com...

If they weren't banned in the first place, this wouldn't be the processed used to unlift said ban. ;) Remember, the legislation came from those seeking to deny to others what they themselves have.

Marriage is not a right without parameters. It is a qualified right. That is - if you want the government to 'recognize' your marriage, you must meet the requirements
for that recognition and that applies to all of us equally.

Our government has the right to draw the lines on what it will and will not recognize as a "marriage." You may disagree with where the lines are drawn but that doesn't mean that your rights have been denied. Like I said, marriage is not an unqualified right like the right to speak freely is. Marriage is a legal construct and the requirements for its recognition are not limitless.

I'm fairly certain that this will be the very point made by the SCOTUS when they finally rule on this issue. Time will tell.

So... separate but equal.

The court ruled on that appeal in favor of letting the states decided, which ultimately is voter initiative, and as you and I both know, you can't vote away the rights of others. 'qualified' right needs to demonstrate how that right applies to one group, but not another, or how that particular right serves the common good to exist. That is why it was struck down in California: it was a law that served no good but to discriminate. The judges weren't afraid to call a spade a spade on it.

I believe the SCOTUS will conclude that legally defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman is not an act of discrimination against gays, polygamist or anyone else. The people through their representatives (congress) have the right to decide the unions that it will and will not recognize for what is best for the "General Welfare" of our society.

Marriage recognition only becomes a right when you meet the legal requirements to have your marriage recognized. This does not prevent any other forms of civil unions from taking place.

While you may believe what SCotUS will act a certain way, please answer why you think a heterosexual marriage is in keeping with the General Welfare, but a homosexual one is not, and secondly, yes, it does take away from other civil unions, the Florida state constituion specifically states that it will recognize no other form of union unless its between a man and wife, civil included. Obviously, that is currently working its way through the courts.

Do you think inter-racial marriages were against the General Welfare? Didn't that not meet a general criteria... but was found to be unconstitutional? How is this going to be any different? I don't think the SCotUS is going to define who can marry whom.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2014 10:16:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/8/2014 7:31:56 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/8/2014 11:20:52 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:

Marriage recognition only becomes a right when you meet the legal requirements to have your marriage recognized. This does not prevent any other forms of civil unions from taking place.

While you may believe what SCotUS will act a certain way, please answer why you think a heterosexual marriage is in keeping with the General Welfare, but a homosexual one is not,

I never claimed that the recognition of gay marriages are not in keeping with the General Welfare. Did I? (the answer is no - I didn't) I do think the recognition of gay marriages is un-necessary for the "general" welfare of the nation and the bigger point that I am trying to make is that our government has the right to draw the lines SOMEwhere on what it will and will not recognize, reward, etc.

and secondly, yes, it does take away from other civil unions, the Florida state constituion specifically states that it will recognize no other form of union unless its between a man and wife, civil included. Obviously, that is currently working its way through the courts.

I don't have any problems with that either - so long as the language and policy is reflective of the Florida citizens stance and doesn't violate any Constitutional rights.

Do you think inter-racial marriages were against the General Welfare?

No. However, that's not what I feel the criteria should be. The criteria should be "what is best suited" for the General welfare and those things should be given incentives. It's not a matter (in my opinion) that other unions are "against" anything - they simply might not be something to be rewarded or encouraged by the benefits of government recognition.

Didn't that not meet a general criteria... but was found to be unconstitutional?

This is an interesting because my marriage is a bi-racial marriage and i stand by my views - that the government has the right to decide what it will and will not recognize. At the same time, I can see why the ban on bi-racial marriages would not pass Constitutional muster. The legal definitions for marriage at the time had no mention of the participants being of the same race. It was simply one man and one woman and it didn't take the redefining of "marriage' to allow for those marriages to be recognized.

I have to add (as much as I appreciate my wife) there is something that is lost in mixing races. All cultures and races have reasons for pride in their heritage and traditions. Mixing them all up and remixing them generation after generation is (in my opinion) a net loss of that heritage and culture.

How is this going to be any different?

The biggest difference that I can see is that gays want the definition of marriage to be completely changed from "one man and one woman" to allow for same sex marriages. The SCOTUS (in my opinion) should ALLOW that - but only if the case can be made that doing so is in the interest of the General Welfare needs of the nation.

I don't think the SCotUS is going to define who can marry whom.

Neither do I. But that is not what they are being asked to do.
"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...
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2014 11:00:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/8/2014 10:16:51 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 11/8/2014 7:31:56 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/8/2014 11:20:52 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:

Marriage recognition only becomes a right when you meet the legal requirements to have your marriage recognized. This does not prevent any other forms of civil unions from taking place.

While you may believe what SCotUS will act a certain way, please answer why you think a heterosexual marriage is in keeping with the General Welfare, but a homosexual one is not,

I never claimed that the recognition of gay marriages are not in keeping with the General Welfare. Did I? (the answer is no - I didn't) I do think the recognition of gay marriages is un-necessary for the "general" welfare of the nation and the bigger point that I am trying to make is that our government has the right to draw the lines SOMEwhere on what it will and will not recognize, reward, etc.

Heterosexual marriage by the same token is un-necessary for the general welfare. The lines being drawn are being drawn after some one 'approaches' them.

and secondly, yes, it does take away from other civil unions, the Florida state constituion specifically states that it will recognize no other form of union unless its between a man and wife, civil included. Obviously, that is currently working its way through the courts.

I don't have any problems with that either - so long as the language and policy is reflective of the Florida citizens stance and doesn't violate any Constitutional rights.

53 percent, and falling fast by last count, which is INCREDIBLY ironic, considering that in the same election year for State amendments, a proposition to ensure only a 60+ percent majority would carry such a motion from general referendum. Again, ironically, such a motion (at the time) carried carried a majority, and was passed, but not by the criteria the referendum would soon make.

Do you think inter-racial marriages were against the General Welfare?

No. However, that's not what I feel the criteria should be. The criteria should be "what is best suited" for the General welfare and those things should be given incentives. It's not a matter (in my opinion) that other unions are "against" anything - they simply might not be something to be rewarded or encouraged by the benefits of government recognition.

And as previously asked, you haven't answered why hetero is not suited but homo is to the general welfare. You use an argument as a shield if you don't think it applies, I haven't seen you actually apply it yet.

Didn't that not meet a general criteria... but was found to be unconstitutional?

This is an interesting because my marriage is a bi-racial marriage and i stand by my views - that the government has the right to decide what it will and will not recognize. At the same time, I can see why the ban on bi-racial marriages would not pass Constitutional muster. The legal definitions for marriage at the time had no mention of the participants being of the same race. It was simply one man and one woman and it didn't take the redefining of "marriage' to allow for those marriages to be recognized.

It was a ban that redefined it. Florida's constitution allowed for a gay marriage until such time as the general amendment hit the ballot. Before the ban, there was no mention of participants being of the same sex. I can't help but notice that 'redefining' is being done by additional legislation as opposed to the law as written.

I have to add (as much as I appreciate my wife) there is something that is lost in mixing races. All cultures and races have reasons for pride in their heritage and traditions. Mixing them all up and remixing them generation after generation is (in my opinion) a net loss of that heritage and culture.

I get this is a personal opinion, and to an extent agree, however also feel that such a loss can only occur one wants that to happen.

How is this going to be any different?

The biggest difference that I can see is that gays want the definition of marriage to be completely changed from "one man and one woman" to allow for same sex marriages. The SCOTUS (in my opinion) should ALLOW that - but only if the case can be made that doing so is in the interest of the General Welfare needs of the nation.


No, gays want the ban of additional laws that exclude them post hoc. Like I mentioned with the Florida constituion, the amendment was written to exclude the homosexuals from marrying. Not that the law as written did so on its own.
I don't think the SCotUS is going to define who can marry whom.

Neither do I. But that is not what they are being asked to do.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...