Ban Gay Marriages

i be on the con by which saying ban all gay rights any suggestions feel free to post

At 5/1/2012 1:37:53 AM, Pboy21 wrote:
i be on the con by which saying ban all gay rights any suggestions feel free to post

lol

Respond to all the arguments I put in my debate. Also, I don't care about your religion.

What about the right to life?

I be on the mandatory by which mean everyone should be forced have the gay marriage.

At 5/1/2012 1:53:01 AM, Koopin wrote:
What about the right to life?

How does that violate the right to life?

It's not the government's role to intervene in religious matters. The role of the government is to protect the life, liberty, and property of it's citizens; the government has no other role. The government only serves the citizens who they represent, and their only role is to protect the rights of the citizens.

At 5/1/2012 9:53:14 AM, DanT wrote:

At 5/1/2012 1:53:01 AM, Koopin wrote:
What about the right to life?

How does that violate the right to life?

It's not the government's role to intervene in religious matters. The role of the government is to protect the life, liberty, and property of it's citizens; the government has no other role. The government only serves the citizens who they represent, and their only role is to protect the rights of the citizens.

Barring the right to life on thing, you already say government needs to protect liberty. *coughcough*

At 5/1/2012 1:51:35 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Respond to all the arguments I put in my debate. Also, I don't care about your religion.

Lol. Gotta love being a Christian and agreeing with gay marriage :D

Lol, gay rights isn't the issue in the gay marriage debate.

It's whether or not all men have the right to marry men and if all women have the right to marry women.

At 5/1/2012 9:53:14 AM, DanT wrote:

At 5/1/2012 1:53:01 AM, Koopin wrote:
What about the right to life?

How does that violate the right to life?

It's not the government's role to intervene in religious matters. The role of the government is to protect the life, liberty, and property of it's citizens; the government has no other role. The government only serves the citizens who they represent, and their only role is to protect the rights of the citizens.

Yeah, I think that this is the most powerful justification for not banning homosexual marriages. The state cannot ban anything unless it has a compelling reason to (i.e. it violates the rights of others).

At 5/1/2012 11:12:29 AM, M.Torres wrote:

At 5/1/2012 9:53:14 AM, DanT wrote:

At 5/1/2012 1:53:01 AM, Koopin wrote:
What about the right to life?

How does that violate the right to life?

It's not the government's role to intervene in religious matters. The role of the government is to protect the life, liberty, and property of it's citizens; the government has no other role. The government only serves the citizens who they represent, and their only role is to protect the rights of the citizens.

Barring the right to life on thing, you already say government needs to protect liberty. *coughcough*

It does not violate the right to life, it does violate the right to liberty. As I already pointed out, the government should not interfere in religious matters, as it violates the right to liberty; this includes marriage.

At 5/4/2012 9:23:59 AM, DanT wrote:

At 5/1/2012 11:12:29 AM, M.Torres wrote:

At 5/1/2012 9:53:14 AM, DanT wrote:

At 5/1/2012 1:53:01 AM, Koopin wrote:
What about the right to life?

How does that violate the right to life?

It's not the government's role to intervene in religious matters. The role of the government is to protect the life, liberty, and property of it's citizens; the government has no other role. The government only serves the citizens who they represent, and their only role is to protect the rights of the citizens.

Barring the right to life on thing, you already say government needs to protect liberty. *coughcough*

It does not violate the right to life, it does violate the right to liberty. As I already pointed out, the government should not interfere in religious matters, as it violates the right to liberty; this includes marriage.

Prohibiting Gay Marriage, as well as sanctioning them, both violates the right to Liberty; the government's only logical position should be neutral.

At 5/4/2012 9:23:30 AM, royalpaladin wrote:

At 5/1/2012 9:53:14 AM, DanT wrote:

At 5/1/2012 1:53:01 AM, Koopin wrote:
What about the right to life?

How does that violate the right to life?

It's not the government's role to intervene in religious matters. The role of the government is to protect the life, liberty, and property of it's citizens; the government has no other role. The government only serves the citizens who they represent, and their only role is to protect the rights of the citizens.

Yeah, I think that this is the most powerful justification for not banning homosexual marriages. The state cannot ban anything unless it has a compelling reason to (i.e. it violates the rights of others).

Yup, banning multi-millionaire executives from recieving unemployment is totally unjustified. It's also unjustified for the state to fund specific sex organizations (girlsscouts, boy scouts) or any organization that treats men and women even slightly differently by definition.

Absurd, discretion comes before equality.

At 5/4/2012 9:27:00 AM, DanT wrote:

At 5/4/2012 9:23:59 AM, DanT wrote:

At 5/1/2012 11:12:29 AM, M.Torres wrote:

At 5/1/2012 9:53:14 AM, DanT wrote:

At 5/1/2012 1:53:01 AM, Koopin wrote:
What about the right to life?

How does that violate the right to life?

It's not the government's role to intervene in religious matters. The role of the government is to protect the life, liberty, and property of it's citizens; the government has no other role. The government only serves the citizens who they represent, and their only role is to protect the rights of the citizens.

Barring the right to life on thing, you already say government needs to protect liberty. *coughcough*

It does not violate the right to life, it does violate the right to liberty. As I already pointed out, the government should not interfere in religious matters, as it violates the right to liberty; this includes marriage.

Prohibiting Gay Marriage, as well as sanctioning them, both violates the right to Liberty; the government's only logical position should be neutral.

How does sanctioning any relationship violate liberty?

At 5/4/2012 9:28:29 AM, royalpaladin wrote:

At 5/4/2012 9:27:00 AM, DanT wrote:

At 5/4/2012 9:23:59 AM, DanT wrote:

At 5/1/2012 11:12:29 AM, M.Torres wrote:

At 5/1/2012 9:53:14 AM, DanT wrote:

At 5/1/2012 1:53:01 AM, Koopin wrote:
What about the right to life?

How does that violate the right to life?

It's not the government's role to intervene in religious matters. The role of the government is to protect the life, liberty, and property of it's citizens; the government has no other role. The government only serves the citizens who they represent, and their only role is to protect the rights of the citizens.

Barring the right to life on thing, you already say government needs to protect liberty. *coughcough*

It does not violate the right to life, it does violate the right to liberty. As I already pointed out, the government should not interfere in religious matters, as it violates the right to liberty; this includes marriage.

Prohibiting Gay Marriage, as well as sanctioning them, both violates the right to Liberty; the government's only logical position should be neutral.

How does sanctioning any relationship violate liberty?

I'd imagine it would violate the county clerk who gives out the marriage license's liberty to refuse to grant licenses to homosexual couple, but Dan probably has a better example.

At 5/4/2012 9:28:29 AM, royalpaladin wrote:

At 5/4/2012 9:27:00 AM, DanT wrote:

At 5/4/2012 9:23:59 AM, DanT wrote:

At 5/1/2012 11:12:29 AM, M.Torres wrote:

At 5/1/2012 9:53:14 AM, DanT wrote:

At 5/1/2012 1:53:01 AM, Koopin wrote:
What about the right to life?

How does that violate the right to life?

It's not the government's role to intervene in religious matters. The role of the government is to protect the life, liberty, and property of it's citizens; the government has no other role. The government only serves the citizens who they represent, and their only role is to protect the rights of the citizens.

Barring the right to life on thing, you already say government needs to protect liberty. *coughcough*

It does not violate the right to life, it does violate the right to liberty. As I already pointed out, the government should not interfere in religious matters, as it violates the right to liberty; this includes marriage.

Prohibiting Gay Marriage, as well as sanctioning them, both violates the right to Liberty; the government's only logical position should be neutral.

How does sanctioning any relationship violate liberty?

Not sanctioning a relationship, sanctioning a religious act. There is a reason for separation of church and state.

It should be up to the individual churches to decide. The government should have no say in marriage. They should not deal in divorces, as marriage is a religious pact, not a legal one. They should not hand out marriage licenses either.
As for filing jointly, that is BS; a couple who does not believe in marriage should be able to file jointly as well, but they don't have a piece of paper calling them a couple.

At 5/4/2012 9:35:06 AM, LibertyCampbell wrote:

At 5/4/2012 9:28:29 AM, royalpaladin wrote:

At 5/4/2012 9:27:00 AM, DanT wrote:

At 5/4/2012 9:23:59 AM, DanT wrote:

At 5/1/2012 11:12:29 AM, M.Torres wrote:

At 5/1/2012 9:53:14 AM, DanT wrote:

At 5/1/2012 1:53:01 AM, Koopin wrote:
What about the right to life?

How does that violate the right to life?

It's not the government's role to intervene in religious matters. The role of the government is to protect the life, liberty, and property of it's citizens; the government has no other role. The government only serves the citizens who they represent, and their only role is to protect the rights of the citizens.

Barring the right to life on thing, you already say government needs to protect liberty. *coughcough*

It does not violate the right to life, it does violate the right to liberty. As I already pointed out, the government should not interfere in religious matters, as it violates the right to liberty; this includes marriage.

Prohibiting Gay Marriage, as well as sanctioning them, both violates the right to Liberty; the government's only logical position should be neutral.

How does sanctioning any relationship violate liberty?

I'd imagine it would violate the county clerk who gives out the marriage license's liberty to refuse to grant licenses to homosexual couple, but Dan probably has a better example.

It violates religious liberty

At 5/1/2012 9:53:14 AM, DanT wrote:

At 5/1/2012 1:53:01 AM, Koopin wrote:
What about the right to life?

How does that violate the right to life?

It's not the government's role to intervene in religious matters. The role of the government is to protect the life, liberty, and property of it's citizens; the government has no other role. The government only serves the citizens who they represent, and their only role is to protect the rights of the citizens.

It's not that straight forward. Liberty is a very difficult concept to appropriately handle, like what if private businesses just decided not to serve blacks like was done in the 60s and earlier? Do you interfere with the business through civil rights legislation to preserve liberty or do you not interfere to preserve liberty? It's a complex philosophical concept. Not everyone conceives as just the absence of government interference.

At 5/4/2012 9:35:06 AM, LibertyCampbell wrote:

At 5/4/2012 9:28:29 AM, royalpaladin wrote:

At 5/4/2012 9:27:00 AM, DanT wrote:

At 5/4/2012 9:23:59 AM, DanT wrote:

At 5/1/2012 11:12:29 AM, M.Torres wrote:

At 5/1/2012 9:53:14 AM, DanT wrote:

At 5/1/2012 1:53:01 AM, Koopin wrote:
What about the right to life?

How does that violate the right to life?

It's not the government's role to intervene in religious matters. The role of the government is to protect the life, liberty, and property of it's citizens; the government has no other role. The government only serves the citizens who they represent, and their only role is to protect the rights of the citizens.

Barring the right to life on thing, you already say government needs to protect liberty. *coughcough*

It does not violate the right to life, it does violate the right to liberty. As I already pointed out, the government should not interfere in religious matters, as it violates the right to liberty; this includes marriage.

Prohibiting Gay Marriage, as well as sanctioning them, both violates the right to Liberty; the government's only logical position should be neutral.

How does sanctioning any relationship violate liberty?

I'd imagine it would violate the county clerk who gives out the marriage license's liberty to refuse to grant licenses to homosexual couple, but Dan probably has a better example.

The county clerk does not have a right to refuse people that license. He is an employee of the government and must follow the instructions of his employer. That goes for any business.

At 5/4/2012 9:28:28 AM, LibertyCampbell wrote:

At 5/4/2012 9:23:30 AM, royalpaladin wrote:

At 5/1/2012 9:53:14 AM, DanT wrote:

At 5/1/2012 1:53:01 AM, Koopin wrote:
What about the right to life?

How does that violate the right to life?

It's not the government's role to intervene in religious matters. The role of the government is to protect the life, liberty, and property of it's citizens; the government has no other role. The government only serves the citizens who they represent, and their only role is to protect the rights of the citizens.

Yeah, I think that this is the most powerful justification for not banning homosexual marriages. The state cannot ban anything unless it has a compelling reason to (i.e. it violates the rights of others).

Yup, banning multi-millionaire executives from recieving unemployment is totally unjustified. It's also unjustified for the state to fund specific sex organizations (girlsscouts, boy scouts) or any organization that treats men and women even slightly differently by definition.

Absurd, discretion comes before equality.

I am talking about the right to liberty, not the right to equality. What does this have to do with that? Nothing.

At 5/4/2012 9:42:50 AM, DanT wrote:

At 5/4/2012 9:35:06 AM, LibertyCampbell wrote:

At 5/4/2012 9:28:29 AM, royalpaladin wrote:

At 5/4/2012 9:27:00 AM, DanT wrote:

At 5/4/2012 9:23:59 AM, DanT wrote:

At 5/1/2012 11:12:29 AM, M.Torres wrote:

At 5/1/2012 9:53:14 AM, DanT wrote:

At 5/1/2012 1:53:01 AM, Koopin wrote:
What about the right to life?

How does that violate the right to life?

It's not the government's role to intervene in religious matters. The role of the government is to protect the life, liberty, and property of it's citizens; the government has no other role. The government only serves the citizens who they represent, and their only role is to protect the rights of the citizens.

Barring the right to life on thing, you already say government needs to protect liberty. *coughcough*

It does not violate the right to life, it does violate the right to liberty. As I already pointed out, the government should not interfere in religious matters, as it violates the right to liberty; this includes marriage.

Prohibiting Gay Marriage, as well as sanctioning them, both violates the right to Liberty; the government's only logical position should be neutral.

How does sanctioning any relationship violate liberty?

I'd imagine it would violate the county clerk who gives out the marriage license's liberty to refuse to grant licenses to homosexual couple, but Dan probably has a better example.

It violates religious liberty

Marriage is a social institution.

The violation of religious liberty: stating a religion has no right to let gay men or women get married to one another.

At 5/4/2012 12:05:49 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
The violation of religious liberty: stating a religion has no right to let gay men or women get married to one another.

True; once again, I agree with you there. It is also a violation of religious liberty to require a church to preform a marriage they believe is against their religion.

At 5/4/2012 10:55:56 AM, royalpaladin wrote:

At 5/4/2012 9:42:50 AM, DanT wrote:

At 5/4/2012 9:35:06 AM, LibertyCampbell wrote:

At 5/4/2012 9:28:29 AM, royalpaladin wrote:

At 5/4/2012 9:27:00 AM, DanT wrote:

At 5/4/2012 9:23:59 AM, DanT wrote:

At 5/1/2012 11:12:29 AM, M.Torres wrote:

At 5/1/2012 9:53:14 AM, DanT wrote:

At 5/1/2012 1:53:01 AM, Koopin wrote:
What about the right to life?

How does that violate the right to life?

It's not the government's role to intervene in religious matters. The role of the government is to protect the life, liberty, and property of it's citizens; the government has no other role. The government only serves the citizens who they represent, and their only role is to protect the rights of the citizens.

Barring the right to life on thing, you already say government needs to protect liberty. *coughcough*

It does not violate the right to life, it does violate the right to liberty. As I already pointed out, the government should not interfere in religious matters, as it violates the right to liberty; this includes marriage.

Prohibiting Gay Marriage, as well as sanctioning them, both violates the right to Liberty; the government's only logical position should be neutral.

How does sanctioning any relationship violate liberty?

I'd imagine it would violate the county clerk who gives out the marriage license's liberty to refuse to grant licenses to homosexual couple, but Dan probably has a better example.

It violates religious liberty

Marriage is a social institution.

Marriage is a religious institution. Weddings are religious ceremonies, in which two people become married.

At 5/4/2012 5:21:54 PM, DanT wrote:

At 5/4/2012 10:55:56 AM, royalpaladin wrote:

At 5/4/2012 9:42:50 AM, DanT wrote:

At 5/4/2012 9:35:06 AM, LibertyCampbell wrote:

At 5/4/2012 9:28:29 AM, royalpaladin wrote:

At 5/4/2012 9:27:00 AM, DanT wrote:

At 5/4/2012 9:23:59 AM, DanT wrote:

At 5/1/2012 11:12:29 AM, M.Torres wrote:

At 5/1/2012 9:53:14 AM, DanT wrote:

At 5/1/2012 1:53:01 AM, Koopin wrote:
What about the right to life?

How does that violate the right to life?

It's not the government's role to intervene in religious matters. The role of the government is to protect the life, liberty, and property of it's citizens; the government has no other role. The government only serves the citizens who they represent, and their only role is to protect the rights of the citizens.

Barring the right to life on thing, you already say government needs to protect liberty. *coughcough*

It does not violate the right to life, it does violate the right to liberty. As I already pointed out, the government should not interfere in religious matters, as it violates the right to liberty; this includes marriage.

Prohibiting Gay Marriage, as well as sanctioning them, both violates the right to Liberty; the government's only logical position should be neutral.

How does sanctioning any relationship violate liberty?

I'd imagine it would violate the county clerk who gives out the marriage license's liberty to refuse to grant licenses to homosexual couple, but Dan probably has a better example.

It violates religious liberty

Marriage is a social institution.

Marriage is a religious institution. Weddings are religious ceremonies, in which two people become married.

Marriage is a social institution in which the sexual relationship between two individuals is formalized by society. It so happens that in some societies it had religious elements.

At 5/4/2012 10:44:12 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:

At 5/1/2012 9:53:14 AM, DanT wrote:

At 5/1/2012 1:53:01 AM, Koopin wrote:
What about the right to life?

How does that violate the right to life?

It's not the government's role to intervene in religious matters. The role of the government is to protect the life, liberty, and property of it's citizens; the government has no other role. The government only serves the citizens who they represent, and their only role is to protect the rights of the citizens.

It's not that straight forward. Liberty is a very difficult concept to appropriately handle, like what if private businesses just decided not to serve blacks like was done in the 60s and earlier? Do you interfere with the business through civil rights legislation to preserve liberty or do you not interfere to preserve liberty?

Business owners have a right to refuse service. Intervening would violate the business owner's liberty. The customer could simply go to a competing business; the business owner is only hurting himself.

Liberty means freedom. By requiring the business owner do business, we are restricting their freedom.
I can't stand racism, and bigotry, but just because someone is a bigot does not mean he should be denied his rights.

No liberty is being violated on the side of the customer, because the customer has the freedom to do business with someone else.

It's a complex philosophical concept. Not everyone conceives as just the absence of government interference.

The government serves the entire community; if the government can only preserve liberty of one group of people, by denying the liberty of another group of people, than the government should take a neutral stance.

At 5/4/2012 5:18:31 PM, DanT wrote:

At 5/4/2012 12:05:49 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
The violation of religious liberty: stating a religion has no right to let gay men or women get married to one another.

True; once again, I agree with you there. It is also a violation of religious liberty to require a church to preform a marriage they believe is against their religion.

Would this mean that you agree that the state banning a religious marriage as a marriage is unfounded?

Business owners have a right to refuse service.

Why?

Intervening would violate the business owner's liberty. The customer could simply go to a competing business; the business owner is only hurting himself.

And not intervening could be considered as a violation the consumer's liberty. Sure, if the competition is next door is no big deal but if it's widely prevalent or the businesses are far apart that consumer's ability to thrive is severely hampered.

No liberty is being violated on the side of the customer, because the customer has the freedom to do business with someone else.

Businesses are basically the sole suppliers of certain crucial goods.

At 5/4/2012 5:31:30 PM, royalpaladin wrote:

At 5/4/2012 5:21:54 PM, DanT wrote:

At 5/4/2012 10:55:56 AM, royalpaladin wrote:

At 5/4/2012 9:42:50 AM, DanT wrote:

At 5/4/2012 9:35:06 AM, LibertyCampbell wrote:

At 5/4/2012 9:28:29 AM, royalpaladin wrote:

At 5/4/2012 9:27:00 AM, DanT wrote:

At 5/4/2012 9:23:59 AM, DanT wrote:

At 5/1/2012 11:12:29 AM, M.Torres wrote:

At 5/1/2012 9:53:14 AM, DanT wrote:

At 5/1/2012 1:53:01 AM, Koopin wrote:
What about the right to life?

How does that violate the right to life?

It's not the government's role to intervene in religious matters. The role of the government is to protect the life, liberty, and property of it's citizens; the government has no other role. The government only serves the citizens who they represent, and their only role is to protect the rights of the citizens.

Barring the right to life on thing, you already say government needs to protect liberty. *coughcough*

It does not violate the right to life, it does violate the right to liberty. As I already pointed out, the government should not interfere in religious matters, as it violates the right to liberty; this includes marriage.

Prohibiting Gay Marriage, as well as sanctioning them, both violates the right to Liberty; the government's only logical position should be neutral.

How does sanctioning any relationship violate liberty?

I'd imagine it would violate the county clerk who gives out the marriage license's liberty to refuse to grant licenses to homosexual couple, but Dan probably has a better example.

It violates religious liberty

Marriage is a social institution.

Marriage is a religious institution. Weddings are religious ceremonies, in which two people become married.

Marriage is a social institution in which the sexual relationship between two individuals is formalized by society. It so happens that in some societies it had religious elements.

Actually, it just so happens that marriage originated as a religious institution and was adopted by the State.