Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

Thoughts on same-sex marriage

tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2016 5:03:38 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
I don't see any reasonable opposition to the legality of gay marriage (outside of "privatize all marriage" arguments, which don't deny any group of people anything). Most of the common objections I've seen are easily defeated. And there are good reasons to keep gay marriage legal where it is, and legalize gay marriage where it isn't. Note: "gay marriage" is "marriage between partners of the same sex," not necessarily a reference to homosexual behavior (as might be indicated by the term "gay"), in which case it wouldn't be an inclusive term.

Banning gay marriage is unjust. Denying the right to marry based on sex is discrimination on two separate counts. First, it's discrimination toward people who are attracted to the same sex. It's an intrinsic quality, and there's no reason to deny a set of rights to one group of people while allowing it to another. Such arbitrary discrimination is the definition of unfairness or injustice. Second, it creates a societal barrier between the two genders. "Gender" is a pointless tool created for the purpose of oppression. The only differences between males and females are either (1) physiological ones, irrelevant mostly to society, or (2) very subtle behavioral ones that aren't very relevant to society either. These differences don"t make a difference at all, so there's no point categorizing them.

In fact, allowing same-sex couples marriage improves their psychological condition overall. Lifting restrictions on benefits like marriage is, overall, helpful to same-sex couples. Research has found that when gay marriage is allowed, it reduces a significant social stigma placed on same-sex couples, which allows for better psychological condition (http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu...). It's clear that this social stigma is an instance of injustice and a severe harm caused by banning gay marriage.

There are also economic benefits to gay marriage. When there's legal recognition of marriage, the number of weddings also grow. That's because when a marriage is legally recognized, people see weddings as the spiritual/religious ratification of that government contract. It allows a sense of completeness. When people are denied the legal contract, they often don't have weddings either. So when gay marriage is legalized, same-sex couples also often have weddings (since most people are religious and/or like weddings), which allows major boosts to the wedding industry. Economies are often consumption-driven, and this rise in consumption is a huge benefit. People also gain jobs as a result, reducing unemployment (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...).

Gay marriage also creates more tax revenues. Adam Stevenson found that allowing gay marriage would allow more changes in household tax filings, which could create a "marriage penalty," thus generating more government revenue (http://www-personal.umich.edu...). Finally, legalizing gay marriage -- by ensuring more stable financial benefits to couples -- reduces the amount of government spending on safety net programs, e.g. welfare (http://www-personal.umich.edu...).

Conservatives will always bring up the idea that homosexuals make for "poor parents," so gay marriage shouldn't be allowed. There are two separate reasons for this being an unreasonable justification for banning gay marriage.

First, banning gay marriage won't stop same-sex couples from parenting. All it will do is prevent same-sex couples from marrying. Also, merely some statistics that suggest poor parenting isn't sufficient for banning gay parenting. If, for example, a certain race had consistent bad parenting by statistics, one can't ban members of that race from parenting.

Second, all the evidence opposes this. The scientific consensus suggests that same-sex parents are just as good as opposite-sex parents, and most research agrees. Anti-gay marriage advocates like to cite a study by Mark Regnerus on the subject, but his study was deeply flawed for two reasons. (1) The Regnerus study fails to consider important variables, e.g. length of the same-sex romantic relationship between the parents. Only two subjects of his study were raised from childbirth by a devoted same-sex couple, and positive outcomes resulted. (2) In many cases, the children were adopted after a few months or even years in foster care, and the foster care system could cause negative outcomes.

Conservatives also like to argue that allowing gay marriage "redefines" the concept of marriage, which is traditionally defined as being between a man and woman. There's no explanation as to why the traditional reason has to be preferred, or what damage legalizing gay marriage causes to the institution of marriage. Sometimes, a concept has to be redefined. If something is traditionally defined as creating a differentiation between the two genders, it has to be rejected for unjust categorization. Slavery was once considered just -- we rejected it. Similarly, if the "traditional" definition of marriage is unjust, reject it.

Thus, there are no benefits to banning gay marriage and multiple harms.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2016 5:04:37 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
I accidentally mis-sourced my fourth reference.

Here's the actual source: http://www.bloomberg.com...
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Danimal4NU
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2016 5:37:30 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Gay marriage? That's ridiculous, there is nothing happy about marriage.

Seriously though, of course they should be able to get hitched.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2016 6:11:19 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
From any standpoint, the legalisation of same-sex marriage will finish the process of totally normalising same-sex romantic and sexual relations. I think we can all agree on this much.
From the standpoint of most religions, this will encourage behavior which harms the human soul and the human relationship with God.
From a purely secular standpoint, then sure, legalize it, though expect a long-term increase in HIV infection rates as well as a worsening national decline in population.

Basically under a secular code of law it should be legalised, but religious people should recognize how damaging this will be spiritually.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2016 6:17:28 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
One thing that we should all expect within coming decades is that the number of gay or bisexual people will increase drastically within coming decades. Gay sex will then become a normal thing that the average person "tries" at some point or another, seeing as how all stigma attached to homosexuality will fade away and people who haven't done it will simply view it as "a different kind of sex which I hear is really great".
Eventually, the terms "LGBT" will go out of style as the prevailing gay nationalism fades away and is replaced by a "meh, let's just drop the labels" attitude.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2016 6:20:17 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Sexual relationships in American society will lose all sacred meaning whatsoever and become akin to eating a chocolate bar.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
keithprosser
Posts: 2,029
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2016 7:57:35 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/2/2016 6:20:17 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Sexual relationships in American society will lose all sacred meaning whatsoever and become akin to eating a chocolate bar.

I think that happened ages ago when they invented the pill.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2016 8:15:54 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/2/2016 7:57:35 PM, keithprosser wrote:
At 5/2/2016 6:20:17 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Sexual relationships in American society will lose all sacred meaning whatsoever and become akin to eating a chocolate bar.

I think that happened ages ago when they invented the pill.

Not totally. Consent is considered extremely important in America today, which means people still consider unwanted sexual contact to be a violation of the sanctity of their bodies.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2016 9:06:27 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Good post

At 5/2/2016 5:03:38 PM, tejretics wrote:
In fact, allowing same-sex couples marriage improves their psychological condition overall. Lifting restrictions on benefits like marriage is, overall, helpful to same-sex couples. Research has found that when gay marriage is allowed, it reduces a significant social stigma placed on same-sex couples, which allows for better psychological condition (http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu...). It's clear that this social stigma is an instance of injustice and a severe harm caused by banning gay marriage.
The study compared the overall health of unmarried vs married populations - it didn't account for a variety of confounding factors muddle the association. For example, higher rates of promiscuity and poverty in unmarried populations. Very hard to argue for a causal relationship given that data.

Conservatives also like to argue that allowing gay marriage "redefines" the concept of marriage, which is traditionally defined as being between a man and woman. There's no explanation as to why the traditional reason has to be preferred, or what damage legalizing gay marriage causes to the institution of marriage.

The conservative appeal tends to be fundamentally rooted in religion. Not that it makes much of a difference, unless they're interested in advocating for a theocracy.
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2016 10:42:50 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
The idea that marriage should be privatized reflects a fundamental ignorance of what role governmental recognition of marriage has.

Marriage recognition by government does not "intrude" in marriage, it protects marriage from government intrusion.

If all the stupid libertarians just took a moment to google what legal benefits marital recognition has, and then thought about one step ahead of implementing their stupid idea, they would oppose it.
Tsar of DDO
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 2:19:37 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/2/2016 6:20:17 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Sexual relationships in American society will lose all sacred meaning whatsoever and become akin to eating a chocolate bar.

For someone who is supposedly straight, you spend a lot of time thinking about what homosexuals do in bed.
Meh!
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 3:41:02 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/2/2016 10:42:50 PM, YYW wrote:
The idea that marriage should be privatized reflects a fundamental ignorance of what role governmental recognition of marriage has.

Marriage recognition by government does not "intrude" in marriage, it protects marriage from government intrusion.

If all the stupid libertarians just took a moment to google what legal benefits marital recognition has, and then thought about one step ahead of implementing their stupid idea, they would oppose it.

Agreed.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
NewLifeChristian
Posts: 1,236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 8:07:01 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/2/2016 5:03:38 PM, tejretics wrote:
I don't see any reasonable opposition to the legality of gay marriage (outside of "privatize all marriage" arguments, which don't deny any group of people anything). Most of the common objections I've seen are easily defeated. And there are good reasons to keep gay marriage legal where it is, and legalize gay marriage where it isn't. Note: "gay marriage" is "marriage between partners of the same sex," not necessarily a reference to homosexual behavior (as might be indicated by the term "gay"), in which case it wouldn't be an inclusive term.

Banning gay marriage is unjust. Denying the right to marry based on sex is discrimination on two separate counts. First, it's discrimination toward people who are attracted to the same sex. It's an intrinsic quality, and there's no reason to deny a set of rights to one group of people while allowing it to another. Such arbitrary discrimination is the definition of unfairness or injustice. Second, it creates a societal barrier between the two genders. "Gender" is a pointless tool created for the purpose of oppression. The only differences between males and females are either (1) physiological ones, irrelevant mostly to society, or (2) very subtle behavioral ones that aren't very relevant to society either. These differences don"t make a difference at all, so there's no point categorizing them.

In fact, allowing same-sex couples marriage improves their psychological condition overall. Lifting restrictions on benefits like marriage is, overall, helpful to same-sex couples. Research has found that when gay marriage is allowed, it reduces a significant social stigma placed on same-sex couples, which allows for better psychological condition (http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu...). It's clear that this social stigma is an instance of injustice and a severe harm caused by banning gay marriage.

There are also economic benefits to gay marriage. When there's legal recognition of marriage, the number of weddings also grow. That's because when a marriage is legally recognized, people see weddings as the spiritual/religious ratification of that government contract. It allows a sense of completeness. When people are denied the legal contract, they often don't have weddings either. So when gay marriage is legalized, same-sex couples also often have weddings (since most people are religious and/or like weddings), which allows major boosts to the wedding industry. Economies are often consumption-driven, and this rise in consumption is a huge benefit. People also gain jobs as a result, reducing unemployment (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...).

Gay marriage also creates more tax revenues. Adam Stevenson found that allowing gay marriage would allow more changes in household tax filings, which could create a "marriage penalty," thus generating more government revenue (http://www-personal.umich.edu...). Finally, legalizing gay marriage -- by ensuring more stable financial benefits to couples -- reduces the amount of government spending on safety net programs, e.g. welfare (http://www-personal.umich.edu...).

Conservatives will always bring up the idea that homosexuals make for "poor parents," so gay marriage shouldn't be allowed. There are two separate reasons for this being an unreasonable justification for banning gay marriage.

First, banning gay marriage won't stop same-sex couples from parenting. All it will do is prevent same-sex couples from marrying. Also, merely some statistics that suggest poor parenting isn't sufficient for banning gay parenting. If, for example, a certain race had consistent bad parenting by statistics, one can't ban members of that race from parenting.

Second, all the evidence opposes this. The scientific consensus suggests that same-sex parents are just as good as opposite-sex parents, and most research agrees. Anti-gay marriage advocates like to cite a study by Mark Regnerus on the subject, but his study was deeply flawed for two reasons. (1) The Regnerus study fails to consider important variables, e.g. length of the same-sex romantic relationship between the parents. Only two subjects of his study were raised from childbirth by a devoted same-sex couple, and positive outcomes resulted. (2) In many cases, the children were adopted after a few months or even years in foster care, and the foster care system could cause negative outcomes.

Conservatives also like to argue that allowing gay marriage "redefines" the concept of marriage, which is traditionally defined as being between a man and woman. There's no explanation as to why the traditional reason has to be preferred, or what damage legalizing gay marriage causes to the institution of marriage. Sometimes, a concept has to be redefined. If something is traditionally defined as creating a differentiation between the two genders, it has to be rejected for unjust categorization. Slavery was once considered just -- we rejected it. Similarly, if the "traditional" definition of marriage is unjust, reject it.

Thus, there are no benefits to banning gay marriage and multiple harms.
Can we go a day without talking about homosexuality? I mean seriously, there are multiple forum threads about this one topic across various forum categories. What the heck?
Pro-Life Quotes:

"I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born."
- Ronald Reagan

"The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government."
- Thomas Jefferson

"A person is a person no matter how small."
- Dr. Seuss
Jovian
Posts: 1,720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 10:17:57 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/2/2016 6:20:17 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Sexual relationships in American society will lose all sacred meaning whatsoever and become akin to eating a chocolate bar.

You and your wife should visit a psychiatrist if you have a problem seeing your sex life as having lost any sanctity. That shrink could help you find each other sexually again.
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 10:35:42 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/2/2016 6:11:19 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
From any standpoint, the legalisation of same-sex marriage will finish the process of totally normalising same-sex romantic and sexual relations. I think we can all agree on this much.
Not unless it's being passed via popular vote. In many cases, it isn't.
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2016 12:40:31 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 2:19:37 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 5/2/2016 6:20:17 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Sexual relationships in American society will lose all sacred meaning whatsoever and become akin to eating a chocolate bar.

For someone who is supposedly straight, you spend a lot of time thinking about what homosexuals do in bed.

"If you want to ban guns, you must think about guns obsessively and thus be a gun enthusiast!"
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2016 1:24:38 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/4/2016 12:40:31 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 5/3/2016 2:19:37 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 5/2/2016 6:20:17 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Sexual relationships in American society will lose all sacred meaning whatsoever and become akin to eating a chocolate bar.

For someone who is supposedly straight, you spend a lot of time thinking about what homosexuals do in bed.

"If you want to ban guns, you must think about guns obsessively and thus be a gun enthusiast!"

Psst, its a joke.
Meh!
EvanescentEfflorescence
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2016 6:53:38 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/2/2016 5:03:38 PM, tejretics wrote:
I don't see any reasonable opposition to the legality of gay marriage (outside of "privatize all marriage" arguments, which don't deny any group of people anything). Most of the common objections I've seen are easily defeated. And there are good reasons to keep gay marriage legal where it is, and legalize gay marriage where it isn't. Note: "gay marriage" is "marriage between partners of the same sex," not necessarily a reference to homosexual behavior (as might be indicated by the term "gay"), in which case it wouldn't be an inclusive term.

Banning gay marriage is unjust. Denying the right to marry based on sex is discrimination on two separate counts. First, it's discrimination toward people who are attracted to the same sex. It's an intrinsic quality, and there's no reason to deny a set of rights to one group of people while allowing it to another. Such arbitrary discrimination is the definition of unfairness or injustice.

This is circular (making one of the premises it's arbitrary), and discrimination can be positive, if there are legit reasons to banning/not legalising gay marriage.

Second, it creates a societal barrier between the two genders. "Gender" is a pointless tool created for the purpose of oppression. The only differences between males and females are either (1) physiological ones, irrelevant mostly to society, or (2) very subtle behavioral ones that aren't very relevant to society either. These differences don"t make a difference at all, so there's no point categorizing them.

What about neurological ones?

Also, I'm not seeing the link between this and gay marriage...


In fact, allowing same-sex couples marriage improves their psychological condition overall. Lifting restrictions on benefits like marriage is, overall, helpful to same-sex couples. Research has found that when gay marriage is allowed, it reduces a significant social stigma placed on same-sex couples, which allows for better psychological condition (http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu...). It's clear that this social stigma is an instance of injustice and a severe harm caused by banning gay marriage.

If the source is correct, then this is an effective argument.


There are also economic benefits to gay marriage. When there's legal recognition of marriage, the number of weddings also grow. That's because when a marriage is legally recognized, people see weddings as the spiritual/religious ratification of that government contract. It allows a sense of completeness. When people are denied the legal contract, they often don't have weddings either. So when gay marriage is legalized, same-sex couples also often have weddings (since most people are religious and/or like weddings), which allows major boosts to the wedding industry. Economies are often consumption-driven, and this rise in consumption is a huge benefit. People also gain jobs as a result, reducing unemployment (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...).

Huffington Post is not a reliable source, given its left-wing bias and the fact it's a news source. But this argument, like the one above, is effective. Also consider the economic stimulation involved in divorce, too, if you're talking purely economic.


Gay marriage also creates more tax revenues. Adam Stevenson found that allowing gay marriage would allow more changes in household tax filings, which could create a "marriage penalty," thus generating more government revenue (http://www-personal.umich.edu...). Finally, legalizing gay marriage -- by ensuring more stable financial benefits to couples -- reduces the amount of government spending on safety net programs, e.g. welfare (http://www-personal.umich.edu...).

Seems like a viable line of argument with good source -- impressive.


Conservatives will always bring up the idea that homosexuals make for "poor parents," so gay marriage shouldn't be allowed. There are two separate reasons for this being an unreasonable justification for banning gay marriage.

"Conservatives" would need to tie parenting to the notion of marriage, and then justify it with arguments. It can be done, but I'm not sure that it wouldn't get shot down in a debate.


First, banning gay marriage won't stop same-sex couples from parenting. All it will do is prevent same-sex couples from marrying. Also, merely some statistics that suggest poor parenting isn't sufficient for banning gay parenting. If, for example, a certain race had consistent bad parenting by statistics, one can't ban members of that race from parenting.

I'm not sure that there is a viable response to this -- excellent argument.


Second, all the evidence opposes this. The scientific consensus suggests that same-sex parents are just as good as opposite-sex parents, and most research agrees. Anti-gay marriage advocates like to cite a study by Mark Regnerus on the subject, but his study was deeply flawed for two reasons. (1) The Regnerus study fails to consider important variables, e.g. length of the same-sex romantic relationship between the parents. Only two subjects of his study were raised from childbirth by a devoted same-sex couple, and positive outcomes resulted. (2) In many cases, the children were adopted after a few months or even years in foster care, and the foster care system could cause negative outcomes.

Perhaps. I like the analysis on the common usage of study, too.


Conservatives also like to argue that allowing gay marriage "redefines" the concept of marriage, which is traditionally defined as being between a man and woman. There's no explanation as to why the traditional reason has to be preferred, or what damage legalizing gay marriage causes to the institution of marriage. Sometimes, a concept has to be redefined. If something is traditionally defined as creating a differentiation between the two genders, it has to be rejected for unjust categorization. Slavery was once considered just -- we rejected it. Similarly, if the "traditional" definition of marriage is unjust, reject it.

Fair enough. Bit of a red-herring by "Conservatives".


Thus, there are no benefits to banning gay marriage and multiple harms.
Free vote -- short read. I've spent well over 15 hours researching abortion in the past week, so there might be something there for you. I recommend reading Con's counter-arguments first to come to a quick decisions, but the choice is all yours:

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

The opponent didn't respond:

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

No response:

http://www.debate.org...
EvanescentEfflorescence
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2016 6:59:36 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/2/2016 6:20:17 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Sexual relationships in American society will lose all sacred meaning whatsoever and become akin to eating a chocolate bar.

They already have. Casual sex is rampant, and marriage is fast becoming a joke.

Also, whilst I'm not sure that allowing same-sex marriage necessarily leads to sexual relationships degenerating (could be a partial causal link, though), homosexual lifestyles are thoroughly degenerate, in terms of sex. They go through partners like clothing. So you're right, in the regard.
Free vote -- short read. I've spent well over 15 hours researching abortion in the past week, so there might be something there for you. I recommend reading Con's counter-arguments first to come to a quick decisions, but the choice is all yours:

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

The opponent didn't respond:

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

No response:

http://www.debate.org...
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2016 11:17:40 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/4/2016 6:53:38 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
This is circular (making one of the premises it's arbitrary), and discrimination can be positive, if there are legit reasons to banning/not legalising gay marriage.

I'm obviously assuming "arbitrary discrimination is bad," but governments do legislate against discrimination. That's why "suspect classes" and affirmative action exist.

What about neurological ones?

The neurological ones create behavioral differences that lack societal relevance.

Also, I'm not seeing the link between this and gay marriage...

Banning marriage between partners of the same gender is essentially claiming that it makes a societal difference if the partners are of the opposite gender; but gender isn't socially relevant (note: "gender" is not the same as "sex").

If the source is correct, then this is an effective argument.

I'm reasonably certain it is. The logic certainly makes sense, and there are probably examples of that too.

Huffington Post is not a reliable source, given its left-wing bias and the fact it's a news source. But this argument, like the one above, is effective. Also consider the economic stimulation involved in divorce, too, if you're talking purely economic.

I fully agree that HuffPost is unreliable, but the studies linked in that article are reliable (e.g. Stevenson's study).
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
EvanescentEfflorescence
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2016 11:35:16 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/4/2016 11:17:40 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/4/2016 6:53:38 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
This is circular (making one of the premises it's arbitrary), and discrimination can be positive, if there are legit reasons to banning/not legalising gay marriage.

I'm obviously assuming "arbitrary discrimination is bad," but governments do legislate against discrimination. That's why "suspect classes" and affirmative action exist.

That's the problem: you're assuming the conclusion of the argument. You can't assume that it is arbitrary if your goal is to assume that it is arbitrary. Do you honestly think that Con would accept that their position is based upon arbitrariness?


What about neurological ones?

The neurological ones create behavioral differences that lack societal relevance.

Wow. This is very much debatable, and I disagree whole-heartedly. You can see the physiological differences produce *egregious* sexual dimorphism, right? As examples, the ability to become pregnant, a greater presence of testosterone (thereby better at producing muscles) etc.

If you believe that, then surely you don't think that neurological differences amount to inconsequential societal relevance? You really believe that? You really think that men and women behave the same way, and it's only personality differences that account for "societal relevance?" Or are you moving the goalposts from Old Trafford to Pluto?


Also, I'm not seeing the link between this and gay marriage...

Banning marriage between partners of the same gender is essentially claiming that it makes a societal difference if the partners are of the opposite gender; but gender isn't socially relevant (note: "gender" is not the same as "sex").

This "gender isn't socially relevant" is extremely worrying. All your other arguments are fine, but this one would be murdered in a debate.


If the source is correct, then this is an effective argument.

I'm reasonably certain it is. The logic certainly makes sense, and there are probably examples of that too.

Yes, the logic does make sense, at least seemingly.


Huffington Post is not a reliable source, given its left-wing bias and the fact it's a news source. But this argument, like the one above, is effective. Also consider the economic stimulation involved in divorce, too, if you're talking purely economic.

I fully agree that HuffPost is unreliable, but the studies linked in that article are reliable (e.g. Stevenson's study).

Oh okay. It would be better to link the study, though.
Free vote -- short read. I've spent well over 15 hours researching abortion in the past week, so there might be something there for you. I recommend reading Con's counter-arguments first to come to a quick decisions, but the choice is all yours:

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

The opponent didn't respond:

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

No response:

http://www.debate.org...
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2016 11:41:57 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/4/2016 11:35:16 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 5/4/2016 11:17:40 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/4/2016 6:53:38 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
This is circular (making one of the premises it's arbitrary), and discrimination can be positive, if there are legit reasons to banning/not legalising gay marriage.

I'm obviously assuming "arbitrary discrimination is bad," but governments do legislate against discrimination. That's why "suspect classes" and affirmative action exist.

That's the problem: you're assuming the conclusion of the argument. You can't assume that it is arbitrary if your goal is to assume that it is arbitrary. Do you honestly think that Con would accept that their position is based upon arbitrariness?

I mean, there actually is no reason to ban gay marriage.



What about neurological ones?

The neurological ones create behavioral differences that lack societal relevance.

Wow. This is very much debatable, and I disagree whole-heartedly. You can see the physiological differences produce *egregious* sexual dimorphism, right? As examples, the ability to become pregnant, a greater presence of testosterone (thereby better at producing muscles) etc.

If you believe that, then surely you don't think that neurological differences amount to inconsequential societal relevance? You really believe that? You really think that men and women behave the same way, and it's only personality differences that account for "societal relevance?" Or are you moving the goalposts from Old Trafford to Pluto?

The behavioral differences between men and women are way too mild to have a measurable effect on society. The only documentation of behavioral differences has been in selection of toys in children, etc.



Also, I'm not seeing the link between this and gay marriage...

Banning marriage between partners of the same gender is essentially claiming that it makes a societal difference if the partners are of the opposite gender; but gender isn't socially relevant (note: "gender" is not the same as "sex").

This "gender isn't socially relevant" is extremely worrying. All your other arguments are fine, but this one would be murdered in a debate.

Maybe, but it isn't really socially relevant. Categorization of gender is mostly pointless and acts as a tool for oppression.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
EvanescentEfflorescence
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2016 11:47:09 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/4/2016 11:41:57 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/4/2016 11:35:16 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 5/4/2016 11:17:40 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/4/2016 6:53:38 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
This is circular (making one of the premises it's arbitrary), and discrimination can be positive, if there are legit reasons to banning/not legalising gay marriage.

I'm obviously assuming "arbitrary discrimination is bad," but governments do legislate against discrimination. That's why "suspect classes" and affirmative action exist.

That's the problem: you're assuming the conclusion of the argument. You can't assume that it is arbitrary if your goal is to assume that it is arbitrary. Do you honestly think that Con would accept that their position is based upon arbitrariness?

I mean, there actually is no reason to ban gay marriage.

I know what you think, but that isn't a worthwhile argument. You've just presented a line of argument (only in this section) which begs the question. Do you not understand how this is fallacious? Do you want me to explain it to you again?




What about neurological ones?

The neurological ones create behavioral differences that lack societal relevance.

Wow. This is very much debatable, and I disagree whole-heartedly. You can see the physiological differences produce *egregious* sexual dimorphism, right? As examples, the ability to become pregnant, a greater presence of testosterone (thereby better at producing muscles) etc.

If you believe that, then surely you don't think that neurological differences amount to inconsequential societal relevance? You really believe that? You really think that men and women behave the same way, and it's only personality differences that account for "societal relevance?" Or are you moving the goalposts from Old Trafford to Pluto?

The behavioral differences between men and women are way too mild to have a measurable effect on society.

Unbelievable.

The only documentation of behavioral differences has been in selection of toys in children, etc.

And jobs, hours worked, general lifestyles, hobbies, reading interests...




Also, I'm not seeing the link between this and gay marriage...

Banning marriage between partners of the same gender is essentially claiming that it makes a societal difference if the partners are of the opposite gender; but gender isn't socially relevant (note: "gender" is not the same as "sex").

This "gender isn't socially relevant" is extremely worrying. All your other arguments are fine, but this one would be murdered in a debate.

Maybe, but it isn't really socially relevant. Categorization of gender is mostly pointless and acts as a tool for oppression.

You're seriously asking to get mauled in a debate. I don't care how impressive your debate record is. You cannot say ridiculous things like that, and then expect to get away with it.

Insanity.
Free vote -- short read. I've spent well over 15 hours researching abortion in the past week, so there might be something there for you. I recommend reading Con's counter-arguments first to come to a quick decisions, but the choice is all yours:

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

The opponent didn't respond:

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

No response:

http://www.debate.org...
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2016 11:53:25 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/4/2016 11:47:09 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
I know what you think, but that isn't a worthwhile argument. You've just presented a line of argument (only in this section) which begs the question. Do you not understand how this is fallacious? Do you want me to explain it to you again?

I know what you're saying. But if I somehow prove it's arbitrary I can provide *offense* that gay marriage shouldn't be banned. But yeah, I get what you're saying. Anyhow, the actual impact of this lay in the psychology point.

As for gender, see this thread: http://www.debate.org...
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
EvanescentEfflorescence
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2016 12:00:58 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/4/2016 11:53:25 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/4/2016 11:47:09 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
I know what you think, but that isn't a worthwhile argument. You've just presented a line of argument (only in this section) which begs the question. Do you not understand how this is fallacious? Do you want me to explain it to you again?

I know what you're saying. But if I somehow prove it's arbitrary I can provide *offense* that gay marriage shouldn't be banned. But yeah, I get what you're saying. Anyhow, the actual impact of this lay in the psychology point.

Alright - fine.


As for gender, see this thread: http://www.debate.org...

Defining gender as "a social construct" deprives the term an accurate conception of how it came to be. Sure, things such as pink being for girls, might be a social construct. But proclivities, such as women being attracted to the human-centric professions, has deep biological roots.

I don't think I have time to critique this tonight, but I'll find time to read it and give it proper thought.
Free vote -- short read. I've spent well over 15 hours researching abortion in the past week, so there might be something there for you. I recommend reading Con's counter-arguments first to come to a quick decisions, but the choice is all yours:

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

The opponent didn't respond:

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

No response:

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