Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

Why are people accepting gay marriage?

logical-master123
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2015 10:55:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Even though I think gay marriage is legal, I think it is quite strange and weird. Can anyone in debate.org say why it is not really weird to be gay?
Came back to the site :)
TheProphett
Posts: 520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2015 1:44:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/17/2015 10:55:29 AM, logical-master123 wrote:
Even though I think gay marriage is legal, I think it is quite strange and weird. Can anyone in debate.org say why it is not really weird to be gay?

It would not be weird or alien to you if you were gay. People only think it is weird because it is different than the norm that they are accustomed to.
Topics I would like to debate: https://docs.google.com...

Epic Quotes:

She's a cunning linguist, but I'm a master debater - Austin Powers


Economic Forum Revival Co-Leader

If you are interested in starting a political journal for the site, please contact me.
Willows
Posts: 3,567
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2017 11:33:38 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2015 10:55:29 AM, logical-master123 wrote:
Even though I think gay marriage is legal, I think it is quite strange and weird. Can anyone in debate.org say why it is not really weird to be gay?

Einstein wrote screeds about relativity and this is just where it applies.

I could, by the same token ask:
Why it is not really weird to be straight?
FanboyMctroll
Posts: 1,106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2017 2:13:17 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 3/8/2017 7:19:20 PM, KrisB123 wrote:
Gay Marriage is AMAZING!!

So when they have the ceremony do they say "I now pronounce you husband and husband?

And who is the man in the relationship?
Quadrunner
Posts: 2,739
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2017 5:30:17 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 3/9/2017 11:33:38 AM, Willows wrote:
At 10/17/2015 10:55:29 AM, logical-master123 wrote:
Even though I think gay marriage is legal, I think it is quite strange and weird. Can anyone in debate.org say why it is not really weird to be gay?

Einstein wrote screeds about relativity and this is just where it applies.

I could, by the same token ask:
Why it is not really weird to be straight?

Because over 90% of babies play with the thing where the shape fits in the hole.
Quadrunner
Posts: 2,739
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2017 5:35:57 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 3/9/2017 11:33:38 AM, Willows wrote:
At 10/17/2015 10:55:29 AM, logical-master123 wrote:
Even though I think gay marriage is legal, I think it is quite strange and weird. Can anyone in debate.org say why it is not really weird to be gay?

Einstein wrote screeds about relativity and this is just where it applies.

I could, by the same token ask:
Why it is not really weird to be straight?

Honestly, let's just have a bunch of scientists experiment with the same sex and get a consensus already, then we'll finally know if it's really weird
Willows
Posts: 3,567
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2017 9:03:38 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 3/10/2017 5:35:57 AM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 3/9/2017 11:33:38 AM, Willows wrote:
At 10/17/2015 10:55:29 AM, logical-master123 wrote:
Even though I think gay marriage is legal, I think it is quite strange and weird. Can anyone in debate.org say why it is not really weird to be gay?

Einstein wrote screeds about relativity and this is just where it applies.

I could, by the same token ask:
Why it is not really weird to be straight?

Honestly, let's just have a bunch of scientists experiment with the same sex and get a consensus already, then we'll finally know if it's really weird

At the same time, let's have a bunch of scientists experiment with the opposite sex.

Better still, why can't we just accept all people for who they are?

But then some people have no choice, getting their weird morals from some invisible friend.
Heterodox
Posts: 323
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2017 9:55:00 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
mar"riage (mărG2;ĭj)`58;

n.
The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

What's wrong with the legal union of a man and a woman? Just because a man is gay doesn't mean he cannot marry a woman. Just because a woman is gay doesn't mean she cannot marry a man.

Whatever you want to call the legal union between man and man or woman and woman, it's not marriage. I guess we are calling it "Gay Marriage", which is a bit of an oxymoron.
Heterodox
Posts: 323
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2017 10:01:43 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 3/10/2017 9:55:00 AM, Heterodox wrote:
mar"riage (mărG2;ĭj)`58;

n.
The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.


What's wrong with the legal union of a man and a woman? Just because a man is gay doesn't mean he cannot marry a woman. Just because a woman is gay doesn't mean she cannot marry a man.

Whatever you want to call the legal union between man and man or woman and woman, it's not marriage. I guess we are calling it "Gay Marriage", which is a bit of an oxymoron.

Similarly, a person that is gay married does not have a husband or wife. Husband and wife refers to marriage, where gay marriage is not marriage.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 7,111
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2017 12:56:45 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 3/10/2017 9:55:00 AM, Heterodox wrote:
mar"riage (mărG2;ĭj)`58;

n.
The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.


What's wrong with the legal union of a man and a woman? Just because a man is gay doesn't mean he cannot marry a woman. Just because a woman is gay doesn't mean she cannot marry a man.

Whatever you want to call the legal union between man and man or woman and woman, it's not marriage. I guess we are calling it "Gay Marriage", which is a bit of an oxymoron.

There is a difference between assumptions and practice of the word. It has been assumed that a marriage was between a man and woman, as to people of the same gender simply didn't get married as it was illegal, taboo, or in general disliked by society... in favor of the assumption.

mar"riage

/G2;merij/

noun

noun: marriage; plural noun: marriages

1.

the legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship (historically and in some jurisdictions specifically a union between a man and a woman).
"a happy marriage"

synonyms: wedding, wedding ceremony, marriage ceremony, nuptials, union
"the marriage took place at St. Margaret's"

antonyms: divorce, separation

"the state of being married.
"they were celebrating 50 years of marriage"

synonyms: (holy) matrimony, wedlock
"a proposal of marriage"

2.

a combination or mixture of two or more elements.
"a marriage of jazz, pop, blues, and gospel"

synonyms: union, alliance, fusion, mixture, mix, blend, amalgamation, combination, merger
"a marriage of jazz, pop, and gospel"
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Danielle
Posts: 23,780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2017 4:11:48 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2015 10:55:29 AM, logical-master123 wrote:
Can anyone in debate.org say why it is not really weird to be gay?

Nope, it's pretty weird to be gay.
Quadrunner
Posts: 2,739
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2017 5:30:50 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 3/10/2017 12:56:45 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 3/10/2017 9:55:00 AM, Heterodox wrote:
mar"riage (mărG2;ĭj)`58;

n.
The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.


What's wrong with the legal union of a man and a woman? Just because a man is gay doesn't mean he cannot marry a woman. Just because a woman is gay doesn't mean she cannot marry a man.

Whatever you want to call the legal union between man and man or woman and woman, it's not marriage. I guess we are calling it "Gay Marriage", which is a bit of an oxymoron.

There is a difference between assumptions and practice of the word. It has been assumed that a marriage was between a man and woman, as to people of the same gender simply didn't get married as it was illegal, taboo, or in general disliked by society... in favor of the assumption.

mar"riage


/G2;merij/


noun

noun: marriage; plural noun: marriages



1.


the legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship (historically and in some jurisdictions specifically a union between a man and a woman).
"a happy marriage"


synonyms: wedding, wedding ceremony, marriage ceremony, nuptials, union
"the marriage took place at St. Margaret's"



antonyms: divorce, separation



"the state of being married.
"they were celebrating 50 years of marriage"


synonyms: (holy) matrimony, wedlock
"a proposal of marriage"






2.


a combination or mixture of two or more elements.
"a marriage of jazz, pop, blues, and gospel"


synonyms: union, alliance, fusion, mixture, mix, blend, amalgamation, combination, merger
"a marriage of jazz, pop, and gospel"

See this is what confuses me. And I was joking before, to make fun of willows, but the way this whole thing has managing to change the definition of a word is facinating. For hundreds of years marriage was something like this 1913 definition:

"The act of marrying, or the state of being married; legal union of a man and a woman for life, as husband and wife; wedlock; matrimony."

As well as the generic marrying of two things, which was considered separate obviously. The point is, a new generation is Growing up reading the generic Google crap, which with no personal prejudice against this marriage fandangle, I can say with confidence that thousands of words are being butchered, and their true meanings and connotations lost for some reason.

I do find it sad in a way, that words are watered down overtime in this fashion rather than competed with from new, more appropriate terminology. At the same time though this is utterly facinating sering how it happens. Throughout most of history "gay marriage" isn't an oxymoron, but would literally describe a marriage with one or more gay parties, still one man and one woman. Same sex marriage is the oxymoron, because for the majority of the population, (by age) the definition was and still is between a man and a woman as it always has been, since well, the word is going on 1000 years now, and the meaning, which has evolved in every way but man and woman, predates the word.

The Supreme Court, I don't know what they were thinking really. 10 years or whatever that progressive's managed to put the actual definition in semi-serious question under the spotlight....that's nothing, and the state has no business framing things because marriage is now viewed more romantically, (ironic since roman times would view it lawfully) and people need their romantic words.

As a matter of fact, I would argue that many state issued "marriages" are illigitimate to this day because the states don't have to change their definition from what marriage is. My question is why??? I'd like to see how the paperwork is handled now that people who can't get married by definition are signing contracts with the word marriage.

It should have been ruled that gays have the same rights as heterosexual couples, because they did. A gay man can legally marry a gay woman, or any woman. A gay man could still form a lasting union with anyone without bastardising the word marriage. There was never an issue of rights. What was wrong is that gay people thought marriage was about love, and political motivation lead to the sacrifice of sanity. Gays, more notably the progressive body, wanted recognition and the legitimacy of the state acknowledging "same sex marriage", not the equal rights to adopt and equal tax benefits, separation procedures etc....whatever.

While the effect of the ruling that ensures gays equal rights in all states is undoubtedly something to be proud of. The personal touch, is something I regret to see in my nations supreme court. They acted not in law, which would have been sufficient, but also purposefully slanderd the public image of marriage, and undermined the definition. The legal and historical definition, Not law; they defied a word. How? The Supreme Court is for our protection, and to enforce the constitution. It has no business altering public views beyond what it must. It should be devoid of politics, and politics should be left to altering the constitution itself.

The act of the state entertaining this personal crap is some rediculous, even from a guy like me who was happy to see the decision.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 7,111
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2017 5:58:00 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
See this is what confuses me. And I was joking before, to make fun of willows, but the way this whole thing has managing to change the definition of a word is facinating. For hundreds of years marriage was something like this 1913 definition:

"The act of marrying, or the state of being married; legal union of a man and a woman for life, as husband and wife; wedlock; matrimony."



As well as the generic marrying of two things, which was considered separate obviously. The point is, a new generation is Growing up reading the generic Google crap, which with no personal prejudice against this marriage fandangle, I can say with confidence that thousands of words are being butchered, and their true meanings and connotations lost for some reason.

Was the personal prejudice what made the word specifically mean between a man and a woman? That is what I stated by assuming so, previously.

When I was growing up, my parents weren't pro-homosexual. There was literally no "when a man and WOMAN love eachother, they get married"... and in my own little mind, sure, I might have envisioned a mixed sex pairing, but logically, the word speaking outside a heteronormative prejudice means the union or pairing of 2 dissimilar things. That disparity need not specifically be gender.

I do find it sad in a way, that words are watered down overtime in this fashion rather than competed with from new, more appropriate terminology. At the same time though this is utterly facinating sering how it happens. Throughout most of history "gay marriage" isn't an oxymoron, but would literally describe a marriage with one or more gay parties, still one man and one woman. Same sex marriage is the oxymoron, because for the majority of the population, (by age) the definition was and still is between a man and a woman as it always has been, since well, the word is going on 1000 years now, and the meaning, which has evolved in every way but man and woman, predates the word.

I think "wedding" is more along the line of what you are looking for, word wise, as weddings were the ceremony, and traditionally religious/conservative in nature.

The Supreme Court, I don't know what they were thinking really. 10 years or whatever that progressive's managed to put the actual definition in semi-serious question under the spotlight....that's nothing, and the state has no business framing things because marriage is now viewed more romantically, (ironic since roman times would view it lawfully) and people need their romantic words.

I think at that given instance, the word could have been anything, and to them under the law, it would have to mean the same thing no matter whom was participating. They were describing the legal action to the state, the participants shouldn't matter.

As a matter of fact, I would argue that many state issued "marriages" are illigitimate to this day because the states don't have to change their definition from what marriage is. My question is why??? I'd like to see how the paperwork is handled now that people who can't get married by definition are signing contracts with the word marriage.

It really doesn't matter assuming both unions are given the same legal weight, which was the point in general.

It should have been ruled that gays have the same rights as heterosexual couples, because they did. A gay man can legally marry a gay woman, or any woman. A gay man could still form a lasting union with anyone without bastardising the word marriage. There was never an issue of rights. What was wrong is that gay people thought marriage was about love, and political motivation lead to the sacrifice of sanity. Gays, more notably the progressive body, wanted recognition and the legitimacy of the state acknowledging "same sex marriage", not the equal rights to adopt and equal tax benefits, separation procedures etc....whatever.

Well, many states granted them that, in the form of Civil unions.

And then those states immediately after granting that turned around and said it will never be legally recognized as a marriage. Guffaw!

While the effect of the ruling that ensures gays equal rights in all states is undoubtedly something to be proud of. The personal touch, is something I regret to see in my nations supreme court. They acted not in law, which would have been sufficient, but also purposefully slanderd the public image of marriage, and undermined the definition. The legal and historical definition, Not law; they defied a word. How? The Supreme Court is for our protection, and to enforce the constitution. It has no business altering public views beyond what it must. It should be devoid of politics, and politics should be left to altering the constitution itself.

Sort of presupposing a lot of what other people view marriage as in that, aren'tcha?

The act of the state entertaining this personal crap is some rediculous, even from a guy like me who was happy to see the decision.

Humbly speaking, if you feel its "personal crap", doesn't that essentially mean your understanding of the word, even before the decision, is one of a personal inflection, one that you previously alluded to could very well be colored by prejudice?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Quadrunner
Posts: 2,739
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2017 9:13:33 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
FaustianJustice wrote:
The way this whole thing has managing to change the definition of a word is facinating. For hundreds of years marriage was something like this 1913 definition:

"The act of marrying, or the state of being married; legal union of a man and a woman for life, as husband and wife; wedlock; matrimony."

The point is, a new generation is Growing up reading the generic Google crap, which with no personal prejudice against this marriage fandangle, I can say with confidence that thousands of words are being butchered, and their true meanings lost for some reason.

Was the personal prejudice what made the word specifically mean between a man and a woman? That is what I stated by assuming so, previously.

When I was growing up, my parents weren't pro-homosexual. There was literally no "when a man and WOMAN love eachother, they get married"... and in my own little mind, sure, I might have envisioned a mixed sex pairing, but logically, the word speaking outside a heteronormative prejudice means the union or pairing of 2 dissimilar things. That disparity need not specifically be gender.

I agree with you, on the practical aspect, and potential for prejudice among many, ourselves included. The fact is, we are the generations who are changing this word. Some countries have already in the late 20th century, but speaking of this time frame, It has never gone this far out of its original context that I know of. This isn't the transition from more contract/commitment to romantic connotations which were necessary for the rise of gay empowerment. Institutions are artificially altering survived original use significantly from what it ever was before our culture catches up.


I do find it sad in a way, that words are watered down overtime in this fashion rather than competed with from new, more appropriate terminology. At the same time though this is utterly facinating sering how it happens. Throughout most of history "gay marriage" isn't an oxymoron, but would literally describe a marriage with one or more gay parties, still man and woman. Same sex marriage is the oxymoron, because for the majority of the population, (by age) the definition was and still is between a man and a woman as it always has been, since the word was made, and the meaning, which has evolved in every way but man and woman, predates the word.

I think "wedding" is more along the line of what you are looking for, word wise, as weddings were the ceremony, and traditionally religious/conservative in nature.

I'm referring to a formal long term union, generally contracted or vowed, between a man and a woman. A wedding is one traditional ceremony where this is performed.


As a matter of fact, I would argue that many state issued "marriages" are illigitimate to this day because the states don't have to change their definition from what marriage is. My question is why??? I'd like to see how the paperwork is handled now that people who can't get married by definition are signing contracts with the word marriage.

It really doesn't matter assuming both unions are given the same legal weight, which was the point in general.

Well I agree, except the point of getting same sex "marriage" legalized was clearly in part purely recognition, and the legal definitions were trampled upon. States are now forced to issue paperwork legitimate or not.

It should have been ruled that gays have the same rights as heterosexual couples, because they did. A gay man can legally marry a gay woman, or any woman. A gay man could still form a lasting union with anyone without bastardising the word marriage. There was never an issue of rights. What was wrong is that gay people thought marriage was about love, and political motivation lead to the sacrifice of sanity. Gays, more notably the progressive body, wanted recognition and the legitimacy of the state acknowledging "same sex marriage", not the equal rights to adopt and equal tax benefits, separation procedures etc....whatever.

Well, many states granted them that, in the form of Civil unions.

And then those states immediately after granting that turned around and said it will never be legally recognized as a marriage. Guffaw!

It can't be recognized as marriage if they aren't the legal definition of marriage, which is to this day between one man and one woman in many places. Equal rights under civil unions would be possible though, as well as law stating they have reference to documents referencing marriage legally. Just silly ironies now.

While the effect of the ruling that ensures gays equal rights in all states is undoubtedly something to be proud of. The personal touch, is something I regret to see in my nations supreme court. They acted not in law, which would have been sufficient, but also purposefully slanderd the public image of marriage, and undermined the definition. The legal and historical definition, Not law; they defied a word. How? The Supreme Court is for our protection, and to enforce the constitution. It has no business altering public views beyond what it must. It should be devoid of politics, and politics should be left to altering the constitution itself.

Sort of presupposing a lot of what other people view marriage as in that, aren'tcha?

Thank you for pointing that out. I am, but I think its reasonable because the Webster dictionary has been altered that recently, and significantly shaped new public attitude here in 2017 as well as the supreme court decisions. Prior to these events, there was strong opposition as I remember everywhere, including California with over 50% vote for constitutionally defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

http://jimdaly.focusonthefamily.com...
http://www.washingtontimes.com...


The act of the state entertaining this personal crap is some rediculous, even from a guy like me who was happy to see the decision.

Humbly speaking, if you feel its "personal crap", doesn't that essentially mean your understanding of the word, even before the decision, is one of a personal inflection, one that you previously alluded to could very well be colored by prejudice?

"The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality. This is true for all persons, whatever their sexual orientation"There is dignity in the bond between two men or two women who seek to marry and in their autonomy to make such profound choices."

That is what I was referring to. A civil union does not deny any of this if it has been mandated to have the status of marriage. The hearing is full of this stuff. It seems evident that the hearing demanded attention to me, in addition to rights.

It varies substantially, through history and context becoming more general and fine tuned through different cultures, but fundamentally marriage has always been a union between a man and a woman from origin up to childhood of the majority of people still living today, including legal definitions. I do not really have a grief with the word, but I'm in my 20's and my generation didn't grow up with generalized definition. I don't really care that times change. That's fine. I do view a lack of integrity in the supreme court decision, at this point in our history. Maybe within even 5 years it would seem appropriate as it does now, but during the time, there is evidence the public was still generally unaccepting of the new definition despite a quickly growing outlook for gays to be together in recognized, dignified union. Definition changes quite possibly an excuse.

Just for the heck of it, here is a graph of the rise and fall of bans/legalizations
http://gaymarriage.procon.org...
SarcasticIndeed
Posts: 3,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2017 10:01:47 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
Idk, I have a friend who's sorta gay. He's cool, suffers a lot like all of us, has good days occasionally like most of us. He wakes up in the morning, goes to school, drinks coffee with people. He also loves to sing and write songs.
<SIGNATURE CENSORED> nac
YYW
Posts: 40,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2017 11:12:19 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 3/10/2017 10:01:47 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
Idk, I have a friend who's sorta gay. He's cool, suffers a lot like all of us, has good days occasionally like most of us. He wakes up in the morning, goes to school, drinks coffee with people. He also loves to sing and write songs.

I wish more people would figure that out.

There is no meaningful difference between "the gays" and "the heteros."
Trump did something right!

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

Discuss.
Mr.Wonderful
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2017 10:17:59 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2015 10:55:29 AM, logical-master123 wrote:
Even though I think gay marriage is legal, I think it is quite strange and weird. Can anyone in debate.org say why it is not really weird to be gay?

Being gay is weird... but I think marriage is weird too. Why would any man willingly enter a contract to give a woman half his possessions, rights to custody of his children, and accept his spouse can cheat on him and screw with him as she sees fit lest he go to jail. I see gay marriage as a means to an end, which is destroying the institution of marriage and ultimately removing the state from the equation by virtue of its own irrelevance... a cause which I 100% support.
jedi_scum
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2017 1:23:06 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2015 10:55:29 AM, logical-master123 wrote:
Even though I think gay marriage is legal, I think it is quite strange and weird. Can anyone in debate.org say why it is not really weird to be gay?

If you want to get to the root of why something is "weird" to you, the appropriate question would be "Why do you find it weird?". Is it weird because you wouldn't do it? Is it weird because you are interested in people's personal sexual preferences which lead you to feel ashamed to think about how they get off? Why is it weird to you that people, love and are aroused, by their same gender? Why are you so interested? Do you think that homosexuals are interested in what gender you are attracted to? Food for thought.
jedi_scum
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2017 1:45:57 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2015 10:55:29 AM, logical-master123 wrote:
Even though I think gay marriage is legal, I think it is quite strange and weird. Can anyone in debate.org say why it is not really weird to be gay?

It could be weird to you because, like many Americans, gay marriage challenges a lot of religious beliefs as many religions think it is wrong because 2 people of the same sex can't reproduce. In a primitive viewpoint, the only reason to have a mate is to create offspring for the survival of that race, and the thought of being in love in the animal kingdom was not essential, only survival was important. Now that we have evolved past the need to simply exist, for the purpose of surviving, we have learned love and that there is more to life. There are a lot of people still learning love and compassion and find it very difficult to push past the need to simply survive. Surviving also meant following the norms of family and inner circles so as to increase the odds of survival. People from earlier times condemned homosexuality because it challenged religious dogma, so homosexuals were killed, jailed, and put into mental institutions because the people of those times felt it threatened their survival. Now that people have had time to comb out their fears and prove that it wasn't the threat they thought it was, gay marriage became accepted by a wide percentage of the public.
GrimlyF
Posts: 819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2017 2:08:10 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 3/16/2017 1:45:57 AM, jedi_scum wrote:
At 10/17/2015 10:55:29 AM, logical-master123 wrote:
Even though I think gay marriage is legal, I think it is quite strange and weird. Can anyone in debate.org say why it is not really weird to be gay?

It could be weird to you because, like many Americans, gay marriage challenges a lot of religious beliefs as many religions think it is wrong because 2 people of the same sex can't reproduce. In a primitive viewpoint, the only reason to have a mate is to create offspring for the survival of that race, and the thought of being in love in the animal kingdom was not essential, only survival was important. Now that we have evolved past the need to simply exist, for the purpose of surviving, we have learned love and that there is more to life. There are a lot of people still learning love and compassion and find it very difficult to push past the need to simply survive. Surviving also meant following the norms of family and inner circles so as to increase the odds of survival. People from earlier times condemned homosexuality because it challenged religious dogma, so homosexuals were killed, jailed, and put into mental institutions because the people of those times felt it threatened their survival. Now that people have had time to comb out their fears and prove that it wasn't the threat they thought it was, gay marriage became accepted by a wide percentage of the public.

The fact of gay marriage has nothing to do with religion or public acceptance but politics. After the Stonewall protests and the resultant " it's okay to be gay " movement politicians realised there was a huge demographic out there, all voters, to be exploited. That is why pro-gay legislation started and why it continues today. Not acceptance simply expedience. Hetero men don't like gays, they don't trust gays and they won't hang out with gays. That will never change no matter what our vote-grubbing politicians might say.
HEALTH WARNING!. Contact with WYLTED can damage your brain.
Shaq is devoid of musical taste.
jedi_scum
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2017 3:49:25 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 3/16/2017 2:08:10 PM, GrimlyF wrote:
At 3/16/2017 1:45:57 AM, jedi_scum wrote:
At 10/17/2015 10:55:29 AM, logical-master123 wrote:
Even though I think gay marriage is legal, I think it is quite strange and weird. Can anyone in debate.org say why it is not really weird to be gay?

It could be weird to you because, like many Americans, gay marriage challenges a lot of religious beliefs as many religions think it is wrong because 2 people of the same sex can't reproduce. In a primitive viewpoint, the only reason to have a mate is to create offspring for the survival of that race, and the thought of being in love in the animal kingdom was not essential, only survival was important. Now that we have evolved past the need to simply exist, for the purpose of surviving, we have learned love and that there is more to life. There are a lot of people still learning love and compassion and find it very difficult to push past the need to simply survive. Surviving also meant following the norms of family and inner circles so as to increase the odds of survival. People from earlier times condemned homosexuality because it challenged religious dogma, so homosexuals were killed, jailed, and put into mental institutions because the people of those times felt it threatened their survival. Now that people have had time to comb out their fears and prove that it wasn't the threat they thought it was, gay marriage became accepted by a wide percentage of the public.

The fact of gay marriage has nothing to do with religion or public acceptance but politics. After the Stonewall protests and the resultant " it's okay to be gay " movement politicians realised there was a huge demographic out there, all voters, to be exploited. That is why pro-gay legislation started and why it continues today. Not acceptance simply expedience. Hetero men don't like gays, they don't trust gays and they won't hang out with gays. That will never change no matter what our vote-grubbing politicians might say.

Politics, human nature, human rights, and personal choices have nothing to do with religion until religious people bring religion into the conversation. Saying religion has nothing to do with gay marriage is incorrect, if you have been following the gay-rights movement at all these past years. If you haven't I suggest researching the opposing groups at gay-right rally and see for yourself who make up the antagonists, though not all oppose from a religious standpoint, they make up an irrefutable proportion. Radical religious groups make war on gay marriage and homosexual equality, and hypocrites who accept heterosexual marriage, find it unfair that others could benefit equally to heterosexual couples, expresses an inequality crisis.
http://img.memecdn.com...

" Hetero men don't like gays, they don't trust gays and they won't hang out with gays. That will never change no matter what our vote-grubbing politicians might say.

Speak for yourself, your choice of words are grouping all heterosexual men together and that is false. There are a lot of straight men and women who are not afraid to speak up and stand on the side of gay rights. I don't speak for all men/women but to put it in perspective; We have a real insecurity problem in the world where men/women who are homophobic feel they have to be vocal about how homophobic they are because they are afraid of being accused of being gay and rejected by people they trust and love suffering ridicule and alienation.
Homophobic people come up with this idea that homosexuals are a threat because it challenges their ideas their own sexuality, and even though homosexuals are separate in their sexual attractions, homophobes feel unsafe that people exists that don't have the same sexual beliefs that they do. So homophobes feel the need to attack homosexuals so everyone sees how homophobic they are and not accuse them of being gay themselves, which they are insecure about being accused of.
We also have a significant population of "gay-men in the closet who are scared to come out because of not being accepted, as there are many who have been taught all their lives that who they are is wrong. Not all homophobes are gay but it does show insecurity when people go out of their way to hate on homosexuals, because they care so much how they appear to others.
The gay community has faced a lot of physical and emotional oppression and abuse and homophobes are the ones bringing the war. But as people begin to step out of their insecurities they realize they don't have a right to choose who someone loves and marries. Just like it wouldn't be fair to tell heterosexuals they are not allowed to marry.
It doesn't threaten me what sexuality you choose and I don't care who you prefer in bed. Whether you are gay or straight should not stop two people in love from getting married. My advice is, don't give a rats@ss what people think of you, just be yourself. If you don't like homosexuals stay out of gay clubs. It doesn't have to be in your life so don't go looking for a fight.
dipper
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2017 1:23:00 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 3/10/2017 9:55:00 AM, Heterodox wrote:
mar"riage (m&#259;rG2;&#301;j)`58;

n.
The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.


What's wrong with the legal union of a man and a woman? Just because a man is gay doesn't mean he cannot marry a woman. Just because a woman is gay doesn't mean she cannot marry a man.

Whatever you want to call the legal union between man and man or woman and woman, it's not marriage. I guess we are calling it "Gay Marriage", which is a bit of an oxymoron.

I feel the need to point out something that I find deliciously ironic about your entire point here: your use of the word "gay". See, as I'm sure you're probably aware, the term "gay" used to just mean happy. It didn't start to mean "sexually attracted to the same gender" until a whole bunch of people started using the word that way, and when enough people did, the definition of the word changed.

Because of that change, you now freely use the word gay the way you're using it, without even thinking about it.

Seems pretty safe to say that the word "marriage" is headed for a similar change.
GrimlyF
Posts: 819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2017 2:36:20 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 3/17/2017 3:49:25 AM, jedi_scum wrote:
At 3/16/2017 2:08:10 PM, GrimlyF wrote:
At 3/16/2017 1:45:57 AM, jedi_scum wrote:
At 10/17/2015 10:55:29 AM, logical-master123 wrote:
Even though I think gay marriage is legal, I think it is quite strange and weird. Can anyone in debate.org say why it is not really weird to be gay?

It could be weird to you because, like many Americans, gay marriage challenges a lot of religious beliefs as many religions think it is wrong because 2 people of the same sex can't reproduce. In a primitive viewpoint, the only reason to have a mate is to create offspring for the survival of that race, and the thought of being in love in the animal kingdom was not essential, only survival was important. Now that we have evolved past the need to simply exist, for the purpose of surviving, we have learned love and that there is more to life. There are a lot of people still learning love and compassion and find it very difficult to push past the need to simply survive. Surviving also meant following the norms of family and inner circles so as to increase the odds of survival. People from earlier times condemned homosexuality because it challenged religious dogma, so homosexuals were killed, jailed, and put into mental institutions because the people of those times felt it threatened their survival. Now that people have had time to comb out their fears and prove that it wasn't the threat they thought it was, gay marriage became accepted by a wide percentage of the public.

The fact of gay marriage has nothing to do with religion or public acceptance but politics. After the Stonewall protests and the resultant " it's okay to be gay " movement politicians realised there was a huge demographic out there, all voters, to be exploited. That is why pro-gay legislation started and why it continues today. Not acceptance simply expedience. Hetero men don't like gays, they don't trust gays and they won't hang out with gays. That will never change no matter what our vote-grubbing politicians might say.

Politics, human nature, human rights, and personal choices have nothing to do with religion until religious people bring religion into the conversation. Saying religion has nothing to do with gay marriage is incorrect, if you have been following the gay-rights movement at all these past years. If you haven't I suggest researching the opposing groups at gay-right rally and see for yourself who make up the antagonists, though not all oppose from a religious standpoint, they make up an irrefutable proportion. Radical religious groups make war on gay marriage and homosexual equality, and hypocrites who accept heterosexual marriage, find it unfair that others could benefit equally to heterosexual couples, expresses an inequality crisis.
http://img.memecdn.com...

" Hetero men don't like gays, they don't trust gays and they won't hang out with gays. That will never change no matter what our vote-grubbing politicians might say.

Speak for yourself, your choice of words are grouping all heterosexual men together and that is false. There are a lot of straight men and women who are not afraid to speak up and stand on the side of gay rights. I don't speak for all men/women but to put it in perspective; We have a real insecurity problem in the world where men/women who are homophobic feel they have to be vocal about how homophobic they are because they are afraid of being accused of being gay and rejected by people they trust and love suffering ridicule and alienation.
Homophobic people come up with this idea that homosexuals are a threat because it challenges their ideas their own sexuality, and even though homosexuals are separate in their sexual attractions, homophobes feel unsafe that people exists that don't have the same sexual beliefs that they do. So homophobes feel the need to attack homosexuals so everyone sees how homophobic they are and not accuse them of being gay themselves, which they are insecure about being accused of.
We also have a significant population of "gay-men in the closet who are scared to come out because of not being accepted, as there are many who have been taught all their lives that who they are is wrong. Not all homophobes are gay but it does show insecurity when people go out of their way to hate on homosexuals, because they care so much how they appear to others.
The gay community has faced a lot of physical and emotional oppression and abuse and homophobes are the ones bringing the war. But as people begin to step out of their insecurities they realize they don't have a right to choose who someone loves and marries. Just like it wouldn't be fair to tell heterosexuals they are not allowed to marry.
It doesn't threaten me what sexuality you choose and I don't care who you prefer in bed. Whether you are gay or straight should not stop two people in love from getting married. My advice is, don't give a rats@ss what people think of you, just be yourself. If you don't like homosexuals stay out of gay clubs. It doesn't have to be in your life so don't go looking for a fight.

I'm not religious so I don't care what the Bible has to say on homosexuality. I have come to believe that lesbianism is a natural impulse, nurtured over 1,000s of years. On the other hand gay men are deviants and hetero men are repelled by the nature of that deviance. That will never change.
"Gay men in the closet". There is the reason gay men are distrusted. When Blair announced his cabinet in 1997 1/2 of them left the closet because they feared the 'papers would out them. They spent years lying about their sexuality as did Elton John, George Michael, Jimmy Carr, Marc Almond, Pete Townshend and dozens of other famous people. Always it was the fear of exposure that made them stop lying. That they continued to have successful careers rules out that fear. So why the lying?

Regarding marriage. At this time there is a court case bought by 2 gays who insist on a Catholic church wedding. They can have a civil wedding but that is not good enough. They are trying to reverse church laws that have been followed for millenia and for what? Civil partnerships and marriages are legally recognised in England so why the fuss. The priest at their chosen church says they have never been in his congregation nor are they part of any other church's congregation. They don't go to church so why the fuss over a ceremony they know can't take place for obvious reasons.
HEALTH WARNING!. Contact with WYLTED can damage your brain.
Shaq is devoid of musical taste.
Archaholic
Posts: 873
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2017 8:22:27 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
Of course it's weird, strange, rare, alien, or whatever the adjective you prefer to use.

I have nothing against gays, but we have to speak out the truth and not hiding behind a misunderstood polically correctness. The concept of marriage comes from a need to strenght an overriding institution in society, which is the family. With a "gay marriage" is quite difficult to form a family, I mean a real family, even if this gay couple adopts a child, which is not the same at all as getting your own children by means of a very natural process. This is why homosexuality and gay marriage is seen as weird, because it's unnatural, artificial, and has no known purpose. Gay marriage seems to have been created on a whim, since, and that's very clear, Civil Union indeed fulfills all their needs.

So what the heck they want?, I wonder.

BR
Heterodox
Posts: 323
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2017 3:24:35 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 3/18/2017 1:23:00 AM, dipper wrote:
At 3/10/2017 9:55:00 AM, Heterodox wrote:
mar"riage (m&#259;rG2;&#301;j)`58;

n.
The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.


What's wrong with the legal union of a man and a woman? Just because a man is gay doesn't mean he cannot marry a woman. Just because a woman is gay doesn't mean she cannot marry a man.

Whatever you want to call the legal union between man and man or woman and woman, it's not marriage. I guess we are calling it "Gay Marriage", which is a bit of an oxymoron.

I feel the need to point out something that I find deliciously ironic about your entire point here: your use of the word "gay". See, as I'm sure you're probably aware, the term "gay" used to just mean happy. It didn't start to mean "sexually attracted to the same gender" until a whole bunch of people started using the word that way, and when enough people did, the definition of the word changed.

Because of that change, you now freely use the word gay the way you're using it, without even thinking about it.

Seems pretty safe to say that the word "marriage" is headed for a similar change.

You're not wrong, our language is ever changing. It could happen, but it hasn't yet.
ANON_TacTiX
Posts: 636
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2017 1:57:44 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2015 10:55:29 AM, logical-master123 wrote:
Even though I think gay marriage is legal, I think it is quite strange and weird. Can anyone in debate.org say why it is not really weird to be gay?

For the same reason that it is not weird to be straight. Love is love, regardless of sexuality or gender identity.
FanboyMctroll
Posts: 1,106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2017 8:22:42 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2015 10:55:29 AM, logical-master123 wrote:
Even though I think gay marriage is legal, I think it is quite strange and weird. Can anyone in debate.org say why it is not really weird to be gay?

The citizens of North Carolina do not accept gay marriage, it's illegal in that state.