Calendar Awards Forum Leaders List Members List FAQ
Advertisement

Reply Thread is Locked!
This thread is currently closed from further posting.
Closed Thread
$ LinkBack Thread Tools
 
  #1 (permalink)   [ ]
Old 05-01-2012, 09:51 PM
Jaime Lannister Sweden Jaime Lannister is offline
Kingslayer

Join Date: Jun 2006
View Posts: 28,440
Arrow May 2012 Debate: Gay Marriage

READ OP BEFORE CONTINUING

Hello. If you haven't read the discussion over in The War Room, then lemme lay down a little summary. See, this thread is not going to be like other Serious Discussion threads in which you go in and give your opinion and thoughts. You also don't play devil's advocate or anything of the sort.

For this month the debate will be in regards to the legality and morality of gay marriage. If you would like to participate then you must adhere to the rules:
  • 1 - To partake in this debate you must PM me a number between 1 and 6 (NOTE: #4 is no longer an option). I will then PM you back and tell you what you are. If you post in this thread before being approved by me, your post will be deleted. There will be some leeway with the roles, i.e. some do not specify a religion or race or gender you are. Feel free to discuss with me a possible alteration.
  • 2 - Remember that your fellow debaters are not arguing their opinion, they are arguing a stance given to them. Trolling and flaming as always is not tolerated.

On May 26th the debate will be over. I and/or at least one other moderator will choose one person who we felt was the best debater. A possible reward is deciding the topic for the next serious debate.


So without further adieu, the question is: Should gay marriage be legalized on a national level? Why or why not?


List of Participants:
1: Goldfish (A homosexual who is directly affected)
2: Pawptart (a homosexual who is directly affected)
3: DrFeelGood666 (atheist who opposes it as it doesn't promote propagation)
4: MissNancy (Christian who believes it's a sin)
5: Great White North (atheist who opposes it as it doesn't promote propagation)
6: Brina (a homosexual who is directly affected)
7: AKALink (Person raised by homosexuals and thus supports it)
8: Radek (neutral arbitrator)
9: Sollux (Christian who believes it's a sin)
10: Tavros (homosexual who is directly affected)
11: theunabletable (homosexual who is directly affected)
12: lefty (Christian who believes it's a sin)
13: Toby Moore (atheist who opposes it as it doesn't promote propagation)
14: Interestingdrug (person raised by homosexuals and thus supports it)
15:
16:
17:
18:
19:
20:
(note: these are just placeholders. There's no limit on the number of participants.)
__________________
Last Edited by Jaime Lannister; 05-18-2012 at 11:06 AM. Reason:
  #2 (permalink)   [ ]
Old 05-02-2012, 08:25 PM
Great White North Great White North is a male Prussia Great White North is offline
We are criminals!
Send a message via Skype™ to Great White North
Steam ID: Septemvile
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
View Posts: 4,554
Re: May 2012 Debate: Gay Marriage

First post by special request of the Gamz. I'm going to sleep after this.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Despite what is regarded as the law being settled in the favour of the LGBT community in a select, the question of same-sex marriage is by and large an issue under current debate.

Even in the traditionally far more secular and libertarian West, there is some degree of reluctance in the direction of recognition of same-sex marriages by the state. And rightfully so!

Homosexuality by itself is another concern entirely. However, within the context of marriages, it seems logical that we choose not to accept homosexual elopements.

Religious concerns are largely irrelevant.

However, the concerns of demographic trends and state finances are relevant.

Marriage, outside of the religious aspect, is a legal agreement. Which is fine, it is not the partnership of two individuals who happen to be of the same sex that I focus on.

Rather, when two individuals marry, they become the recipients of a slew of tax benefits and the possibility of state support. In the current form of the law in many states, only a man and a woman may enter into marriage and thus only they may enjoy these benefits.

It is not a form of short-sighted ignorance to wish to deny homosexuals access to these benefits. Rather, it is cognizant that the purpose of these benefits is; or at least was originally intended, to ease the financial strain of raising a family.

Homosexuals cannot raise a family. Even if we were to permit homosexual adoption, that would not help to solve one of the fundamental issues facing us in these times: the march of demographics.

Populations in the West are aging. More and more people are getting older and there are fewer and fewer young people. One of the most obvious solutions in the long term is to encourage higher birth rates. By easing the strain on a family's pocketbook, they are hopefully willing to perhaps have an extra child that they originally put off because of monetary strain.

Further, we simply cannot afford to waste our resources on those without need. Worldwide we are facing a shortage of funds. Services must be cut. Taxes must be raised. We must focus on cutting unnecessary costs where they can be found. And a homosexual marriage with all the cost to the taxpayer of a heterosexual union, is most certainly a frivolous and short-sighted gesture designed to satisfy a minority group in an effort to win over portions of the electorate.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lois Bujold
"Your Father calls you to His Court. You need not pack; you go garbed in glory where you stand. He waits eagerly by His palace doors to welcome you, and has prepared a place at His high table by His side, in the company of the great-souled, honoured, and best beloved."
  #3 (permalink)   [ ]
Old 05-04-2012, 04:54 PM
Fluttershy Fluttershy is a female Fluttershy is offline
Too many waifus will destroy your laifu


Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Between a rock and a hard place
View Posts: 6,196
Re: May 2012 Debate: Gay Marriage

Quote:
Originally Posted by MissNanci View Post
I do not believe that same-sex marriage should be legalized.

Marriage has always been defined as a union between a man and a woman. The definition and purpose of marriage was established by God and He does not change His words. The definition of a marriage should be and has always been " A union between a man and a woman. If we change it now then where do we draw the line.

Once marriage is no longer confined to a man and a woman, and the sole criterion becomes the presence of "love" and "mutual commitment," then it is impossible to exclude virtually any "relationship" between two or more partners of either sex. Should we also allow polygamous marriage? How about marriage between a man and his dog? By legalizing gay marriage there will no stopping the changes to the definition of marriage. Marriage should be between a man and a women, that is how God intended it to be. It's why he made Adam and Eve.
You obviously feel very strongly about your religion. That's fine. There's nothing wrong with that.

However, you're trying to force your beliefs on other people. Not everyone believes in YOUR God. Even if you're right and I'm going to Hell for being gay, then it's God's place to punish me, not yours. I refuse to believe in a God who would condemn me for being myself.

Also, I hardly see how marriage between two concenting adults regardless of gender can be compared to bestiality and polygamy.
Quote:
If homosexuals want the same legal benefits that heterosexuals have in a marriage then they can have a civil-union. A civil union would grant homosexuals all the rights and financial benefits that a marriage would. Marriage is a sacred religious sacrament and I see no reason to re-define it when homosexuals can have civil-partnerships if they desire.
Marriage isn't necessarily religious. If that's the case, then are we going to prohibit marriage between two athiests? Marriage is two people who love each other promising their lives to each other. It shouldn't just be restricted to a religious ceremony.
__________________
Last Edited by Fluttershy; 05-04-2012 at 05:05 PM. Reason:
2 people liked this post: Antigone, Prometheus
  #4 (permalink)   [ ]
Old 05-04-2012, 08:33 PM
tallgeese tallgeese is offline
i have foursomes and i don't havta force 'em
Join Date: Apr 2002
View Posts: 1,890
Re: May 2012 Debate: Gay Marriage

Marriage was by no means born from religion. Marriage has been a universal phenomenon across all human cultures, and has been throughout recorded history. The first form of marriage came before religion, and was a means to bind a woman and potential offspring to a man. In a way, men used marriage to own women, so that no other man could have them. As you can see, the definition of marriage has evolved from a sort of ownership to a union. Therefore, the definition has been subject to change before. Knowing this, I believe it is fair to say that even though Christians have a definition of marriage, different cultures have had different ones that have differed over the ages. However, there is no doubt that the Christian definition has had an influence.

Further, the allowance and acceptance of gay marriage would not lead to the chain of events you suggested. That seems to be quite the slippery slope, indeed. For example, a man and a dog are not comparable. Even if gay marriage did open the door for other types of marriage, my statements above show that the definition is not immune to change.

And why such negativity aimed at polygamy? I can understand why someone would not like bestiality. Polygamy is a completely different subject, however. Why judge people who are all able to love each other equally? Marriage is a social construct and anything born from society can change with society. It is not fair to push personal expectations and beliefs onto others.
Last Edited by tallgeese; 05-04-2012 at 08:49 PM. Reason:
  #5 (permalink)   [ ]
Old 05-07-2012, 12:40 AM
pawptart pawptart is a male United States pawptart is offline
I'm going to find out if I'm really alive
Steam ID: pawptart
Join Date: Aug 2011
View Posts: 2,517
Re: May 2012 Debate: Gay Marriage

I think gay marriage needs to be legalized. As a homosexual myself, I see no reason why I should be denied the liberties of every other American simply because I do not fit the status quo.

If you argue in favor of a religious view of marriage, allow me to remind you that the United States is a secular nation bound by the separation of church and state. The government is not allowed to force its views of marriage upon me and I should therefore be allowed to marry whoever I wish (or as many as I wish, but that's beyond the scope of this discussion).

As far as I can see, there appears to be no downside to anyone outside any marriage, so I see no real reason to restrict marriage to only men and women. Yes, we can't have children as homosexuals, but really, with the population increasing as it is, do you really hold that against us? And others have accused me and people like me of being "unnatural" or "weird". Well, there are all sorts of animals that have homosexual relations with each other, and why is it so hard to explain to your children that there are people who are different from you?

None of these reasons are very compelling to keep gay marriage outlawed.
  #6 (permalink)   [ ]
Old 05-07-2012, 05:11 PM
Joseph Joestar Joseph Joestar is a male United States Joseph Joestar is offline
OHHH MY GOD
Join Date: Jul 2008
View Posts: 4,687
Re: May 2012 Debate: Gay Marriage

Quote:
Originally Posted by pawptart View Post
I think gay marriage needs to be legalized. As a homosexual myself, I see no reason why I should be denied the liberties of every other American simply because I do not fit the status quo.

If you argue in favor of a religious view of marriage, allow me to remind you that the United States is a secular nation bound by the separation of church and state. The government is not allowed to force its views of marriage upon me and I should therefore be allowed to marry whoever I wish (or as many as I wish, but that's beyond the scope of this discussion).
Marriage is a religious institution and as such needs to be respected by the state. The government wouldn't be supporting us, but it wouldn't be opposing us either. Going by what you said "The government is not allowed to force its views of marriage upon me", by that same line of reasoning you are not allowed to tell me to respect a government telling me to be okay with homosexual marriage.

Quote:
As far as I can see, there appears to be no downside to anyone outside any marriage, so I see no real reason to restrict marriage to only men and women. Yes, we can't have children as homosexuals, but really, with the population increasing as it is, do you really hold that against us? And others have accused me and people like me of being "unnatural" or "weird". Well, there are all sorts of animals that have homosexual relations with each other, and why is it so hard to explain to your children that there are people who are different from you?
On the contrary, the US TFR has been declining since the 60s and remains at a steady 2.05. The assertion that because it is natural does not make it okay. Do you know what else is natural? Environmental disasters, diseases, and wild animal attacks. Las time i checked those weren't really beneficial. You can't go around destroying traditional familial structures without shaking the hornet's nest.


Quote:
None of these reasons are very compelling to keep gay marriage outlawed.
They are compelling enough and that's all we need.
__________________
next you're going to say
  #7 (permalink)   [ ]
Old 05-07-2012, 10:28 PM
pawptart pawptart is a male United States pawptart is offline
I'm going to find out if I'm really alive
Steam ID: pawptart
Join Date: Aug 2011
View Posts: 2,517
Re: May 2012 Debate: Gay Marriage

Quote:
Originally Posted by MissNanci View Post
The government has no right to deny homosexuals a civil union, but a marriage yes. As I have said before marriage is a religious ceremony and should be left as it is. I just don't get why can't gay people be happy with civil unions and stop intruding on the sanctity of marriage. Also if America's motto is " In God we trust" then they should trust in God and listen to him when he says that gay marriage is a sin.
Beside the fact that the motto you mentioned wasn't formally adopted until the mid 1900s, you have a point.

However, since the US government gives benefits to married couples that are denied to same-sex couples unable to be married, it is simply common sense to allow same-sex couples to be married from a secular AND economic standpoint.

If there are still problems raised with allowing homosexual marriage, then why is it the burden of the government to discriminate? If the problem exists within the religious institution, as you say it is, why not allow the religious institutions to discriminate civil unions from true marriage (as would be their right as a private entity) instead of the secular government? It doesn't make sense that the use of "separate but equal" should be applied here when that rhetoric has simply been proven completely wrong multiple times before.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MissNanci View Post
That is where you're wrong. There are many downsides. As I mentioned before if we legalize gay marriage where do we draw the line? If gay marriage is legalized people will be campaigning to legalize polygamy, incestous marriage, even bestiality and marrying their cars or stuff.
That is a slippery slope fallacy.

The possibility of legalization of gay marriage causing other strange things to be legalized should not have an effect on determining the legal status of gay marriage. There is no way to know what you have said is true, and therefore it is false to assume it will happen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MissNanci View Post
Also it will change the way future generations think about homosexuality itself. By legalizing we would say it's okay and promote even more people to try out homosexual behaviour. It would also further weaken the traditional family values that are essential to our society.
The burden of teaching your children your personal values and morals should never be the reason for the oppression of a subset of society.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MissNanci View Post
So because animals in the wild do something that means it's perfectly okay? Well then pedophillia must be completely natural and normal since it happens quite often in the wild. The animals who engage in homsexual activities are confused. Their sexual drive and instinct to mate is strong and they can be easily confused. Dogs go humping up on sofas all the time when they sense a female is in heat. Doesn't mean now sofa attraction is a perfectly natural sexual orientation. Confused and eager to mate, that's all it is.
Pedophilia is fine, as long as the pedophile doesn't act on it with children. And personally I don't care if you sex your couch up, as long as you're not forcing that obsession on me.

Really, that's beyond the scope of this debate and it's another one of those slippery slopes you've introduced, so I'll ignore that.

However, I would like to point out for a second time that homosexuality results in no immediate detriments to anyone around you, unless of course someone were to force that homosexuality on you in some manner. Of course, that would be classified as sexual assault, and that is not unique to homosexuals, as we see cases of heterosexual sexual assault all the time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sollux View Post
Marriage is a religious institution and as such needs to be respected by the state. The government wouldn't be supporting us, but it wouldn't be opposing us either. Going by what you said "The government is not allowed to force its views of marriage upon me", by that same line of reasoning you are not allowed to tell me to respect a government telling me to be okay with homosexual marriage.
I apologize, I was not intending to come across as saying you must be okay with gay marriage.

As far as marriage as a religious institution: there are two options here. One, marriage for heterosexuals as well as homosexuals is abolished as far as benefits received from the government. Two, gay marriage is allowed, at least as far as the benefits that marriage receives from the government, in addition to heterosexual marriage. There simply is no way to be fair to the gay and straight community. To do otherwise is to oppress a significant subset of the population.

The government is NOT required to respect the religious view of marriage, and in fact it would be wrong to do so for reasons I've already covered concerning the separation of church and state.

I personally don't care how you as an individual would view my own gay marriage, so long as it is recognized officially by the government and I am treated equally in that respect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sollux View Post
On the contrary, the US TFR has been declining since the 60s and remains at a steady 2.05. The assertion that because it is natural does not make it okay. Do you know what else is natural? Environmental disasters, diseases, and wild animal attacks. Las time i checked those weren't really beneficial. You can't go around destroying traditional familial structures without shaking the hornet's nest.
I was not implying that all natural things are good, merely that not all natural things are bad. Even so, unnatural things are good as well, and the argument that so often comes up that gay marriage is "unnatural" is both false and irrelevant.

Since you've invoked the red herring of bad natural things, the burden of proof is on you yet again to show how gay marriage is detrimental to society.

Here's some literature to peruse while you decide.
American Psychological Association
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry
Last Edited by pawptart; 05-07-2012 at 10:30 PM. Reason:
  #8 (permalink)   [ ]
Old 05-08-2012, 08:04 PM
Valhelm Valhelm is a male United States Valhelm is offline
vladith
Send a message via Skype™ to Valhelm
Steam ID: Vladith
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Miami, Florida
View Posts: 8,854
Re: May 2012 Debate: Gay Marriage

Quote:
Originally Posted by MissNanci View Post
I do not believe that same-sex marriage should be legalized.

Marriage has always been defined as a union between a man and a woman. The definition and purpose of marriage was established by God and He does not change His words. The definition of a marriage should be and has always been " A union between a man and a woman. If we change it now then where do we draw the line.

Once marriage is no longer confined to a man and a woman, and the sole criterion becomes the presence of "love" and "mutual commitment," then it is impossible to exclude virtually any "relationship" between two or more partners of either sex. Should we also allow polygamous marriage? How about marriage between a man and his dog? By legalizing gay marriage there will no stopping the changes to the definition of marriage. Marriage should be between a man and a women, that is how God intended it to be. It's why he made Adam and Eve.
The bolded statements are those I plan to refute.

Firstly, you say that marriage has "always" been defined as a union between one man and one woman. Completely false. Until the 19th century at the earliest, polygyny, (unions of a male marrying and impregnating multiple females) was very common. Some anthropologists consider it to be human history's most common marriage system. Certain ethnic groups of Brazilian tribespeople practiced free love-style group marriages. Interestingly, polyandry, of a female marrying multiple males, has never been common. Except in certain Tibetan societies, it is an extremely rare practice. (This likely shows the inherent misogynistic nature of men leading society, but that is irrelevant.) In many nations, mostly in Africa and parts of Asia, polygyny is legal and accepted. Though I am ardently opposed to this legality, as it actively encourages the abuse and subjugation of women, it is a vital part of many cultures. The preservation of cultural diversity needs to be stressed. Nobody would disagree with that.

If polygyny, a method of marriage which leaves women unempowered, is considered acceptable by many societies, marriage is therefore not a union of "one man and one woman". As long as any country allows polygyny, same-sex marriage should too be allowed. Unlike polygyny, women are not subjugated and usually liberated by same-sex marriage.

To use a personal anecdote, because my wife and I live in a US state without homophobic policies (New York), we are given rights that would otherwise not be granted to us. Neither my wife or I are sexually attracted to men. Therefore, we would never be granted legal rights of marriage.

You mention that man-dog marriages would be accepted as soon as same-sex marriage is. That argument is laughable. First, interspecies mutual sexual love is impossible. There is no way for a non-human animal to consent to physical copulatory actions with a person. Therefore, it should never be allowed. Second, the two shouldn't be compared. Bestiality is a practice illegal in all American states. Homosexuality is completely legal and accepted in all states not populated by homophobic, ultra-conservative Bible-thumpers.

Finally, you say that the fact that the Abrahamic Bible mentions the two first people to be "Adam and Eve" as proof that homosexuality is somehow wrong. The Bible is not a scientific document. Show me one scientist who considers it to be so. Harry Potter, another non-scientific document, includes a homosexual character. I am not saying "Because Dumbledore is gay, you should be." That is what you are insinuating, though. Quoting a fictional book has no merit, and makes you lose credibility as an arguer.

The principle difference between myself and you is that I do not try to convert others. There is nothing wrong with a man loving a man (as long as it is consensual and free) and vice versa. I acknowledge that there would be no people without heterosexuality. However, you refuse to acknowledge that homosexuality is just as normal and found in most (if not all) animals. By being so intolerant and homophobic, you show your lack of skill at debate, and any serious argument.
__________________
  #9 (permalink)   [ ]
Old 05-09-2012, 08:07 AM
theunabletable theunabletable is a male United States theunabletable is offline
(◕‿◕✿)
Send a message via AIM to theunabletable
3DS ID: 3050-7697-1416
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Norwalk, Southern California
View Posts: 4,441
Re: May 2012 Debate: Gay Marriage

There seems to be largely 3 complaints to the legalization of gay marriage. I'm going to argue this from the point of view of someone in the United States, for the sake of simplicity.

The 3 main ones I've seen here are the issue of demographics, the issue of marriage's traditional definition, and the moral argument.

I'll try the last one first.

It's not particularly possible to address every conceivable moral objection to gay marriage (as well as to homosexual relationships), but I might as well address the primary one in America: An interpretation of the bible that homosexual relations are wrong, as well as homosexual marriage.

This is a bit simple in my opinion, is it reliable to base our government off of the Bible? Not just that, if we did decide to base it off of the Bible, what all would we include? Clearly our society wouldn't allow, nor agree, with many provisions included within the Bible (Deutoronomy says very interesting things about virgins and execution, for instance, much of which we'd find abhorrent today). But one could also say that those are not modern interpretations of the bible.

Is that responsible, though? On what basis could we say that this is the correct interpretation of the Bible? It's clearly not even the consensus, simple statistics such as http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/wp-...ex-570x332.png
and
http://religions.pewforum.org/img/ma...traditions.gif

should make it atleast relatively clear that even the Christian community isn't certain that gay marriage should be banned, let alone on the strength of the biblical evidence. The margin for error on those studies would have to be very huge to indicate that Christians unanimously believe gay marriage to be wrong, and we also all know from personal experiences that not every single Christian believes it to be wrong, nor contradictory to the Bible.

Why should we use this specific interpretation of the bible to shape our government? Isn't this, almost specifically, what the First Amendment attempts to protect? That would not be respecting the ideas of religion as a whole (IE "In God we trust" not being unconstitutional), that would be literally respecting a single interpretation of a single religion. It's not a rational way of developing government, nor does it fit in with the type of government we already have.

The next one I'll attempt to address is the issue of marriage's traditional definition. This is a weak argument, in my opinion. Definitions are inherently societal, that only need be the definition because we decide that it is.

Traditional definitions hold no strength in what we should do. In an argument where someone says "These are the laws and terms, we should change them!" a reasonable response is not "These are the laws and terms!"

It's easy to think of similar occasions where a group's rights were removed, they were unable to achieve as much, simply because their position was defined as infringing in some way. Such as: Three-Fifths Compromise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Regardless of what the traditional definition even was, the "marriage" that could be called unity between a man and a woman is not the same "marriage" that gives heterosexual couples more tax and legal benefits. The tradition that they called marriage back then does not have the same variables that the current tradition we call marriage does have. Words do not inherently have any meaning.

As well, definitions change over time. Gay didn't used to mean a homosexual, it was synonymous with happiness at one point. Which time period's standard usage of language should we accept as the "legally correct" standard? Which place's as well?

Language is meant to serve people, not the other way around.

And on demographics, I'll say upfront that I doubt the benefits outweigh the detriments.

I think I'll address a specific quote, that has the argument framed better, and in a more unbiased way, than I can:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Great White North
Rather, it is cognizant that the purpose of these benefits is; or at least was originally intended, to ease the financial strain of raising a family.
At this point, is this truly the best implementation of this goal?

Homosexual couples have ways of increasing the population, sperm banks come to mind. And they are certainly capable of raising a family. If our goal is to ease the financial strain of raising a family, why is it the case that a woman in a lesbian relationship cannot receive the same tax benefits if she chooses to impregnate herself in some way?

Being homosexual, or being in a homosexual marriage, does not render you sterile, and it's completely ridiculous to suggest such a thing. If that were our goal, why not provide the same benefits for everyone by allowing everyone to marry, and give further benefits to those who increase the amount of people in the population? Why don't we remove the tax benefits from those heterosexual couples who aren't able, or decide not, to procreate? If that is indeed the reason for those goals, shouldn't any woman or man tested and found to be sterile have those tax benefits revoked?

If that's what we intend to do, we are failing at it by being inconsistent, as well as creating an equality disparity.

And would it actually be a noticeable difference if the gay community wasn't quite as supported? With only roughly 3.5% of the population identifying as lesbian, gay, or bisexual (http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.ed...T-Apr-2011.pdf), would that make anything other than a negligible difference to our demographics?

In our society, which is built upon the intention of a free and equal populace, it seems that the benefits we might possibly receive (it's all theory as well, no evidence of it causing anything negative to our country, atleast presented so far) from banning gay marriage are comparable to the benefits we might possibly receive from euthanasia of those with inheritable diseases (perhaps even less theoretical benefits). While at the same time containing very many of the same detriments that euthanasia of people with diseases, albeit less exaggerated on both fronts.

In this regard, there are many other things we could do to help our demographic at large that would do much more, while being the root of far less inequality.

Simply, the benefits seem to outweigh the detriments. But, of course, I cannot address every single conceivable argument for or against it, although these seem like the most prominent.

Thank you for reading c:
Last Edited by theunabletable; 05-09-2012 at 08:08 AM. Reason:
1 person liked this post: Valhelm
  #10 (permalink)   [ ]
Old 05-09-2012, 05:02 PM
Valhelm Valhelm is a male United States Valhelm is offline
vladith
Send a message via Skype™ to Valhelm
Steam ID: Vladith
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Miami, Florida
View Posts: 8,854
Re: May 2012 Debate: Gay Marriage

Quote:
Originally Posted by MissNanci View Post
The Bible is not fictional. It is the word of God. You are right about the Bible not being a scientific document. Although when it speaks about science it is accurate. We know Harry Potter is written by J.K Rowling and is fictional and extremely scientifically inaccurate. The Bible though is true and scientifcally accurate even though it was written thousands of years ago.
This isn't true. Historians have a pretty good idea which persons wrote the Abrahamic Bible:



It is a document that has been edited many times by multiple authors. How is the Bible scientifically accurate? It's no more so than a collection of Greek myths or medieval fables.

Quote:
I am trying to convert nobody. Never have I said that gay people should try to turn straight. I was merely stating I do not think they should be allowed to marry. Also I am not intolerant just trying to get people to realize that we are angering God by accepting homosexual marriage. I don't dislike gay people. I dislike the homosexuality not the homosexual. So I do think gay people should be able to have civil unions and get the same rights as in a marriage. I do not understand why this is not enough for homosexuals.
Once again, I will argue with your bolded points.

First, show me proof that God hates gays. Next, by hating the practice that defines a group, you are attacking that group. The ridiculous claim of "I dislike homosexuality not the homosexual" is the same as saying "I think Judaism should be banned but I'm not anti-Semitic."

If I were to say that all breeders should be allowed to have civil unions, but not marriages, for the reasons you use, would you agree with me? If you wouldn't agree, that means you are a homophobe.
__________________
Last Edited by Valhelm; 05-10-2012 at 02:14 PM. Reason:
  #11 (permalink)   [ ]
Old 05-10-2012, 03:05 AM
theunabletable theunabletable is a male United States theunabletable is offline
(◕‿◕✿)
Send a message via AIM to theunabletable
3DS ID: 3050-7697-1416
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Norwalk, Southern California
View Posts: 4,441
Re: May 2012 Debate: Gay Marriage

Quote:
I am trying to convert nobody. Never have I said that gay people should try to turn straight. I was merely stating I do not think they should be allowed to marry. Also I am not intolerant just trying to get people to realize that we are angering God by accepting homosexual marriage. I don't dislike gay people. I dislike the homosexuality not the homosexual. So I do think gay people should be able to have civil unions and get the same rights as in a marriage. I do not understand why this is not enough for homosexuals.
Would you propose that we rename the title of any senator who is African American to "Black Senator", so as not to anger my deity? They do the same things, it's not discrimination. Black Senators have all the same powers as Senators, it's just a different name, so it's not discrimination.

The point of language is to communicate meaning. The pixels creating the shape that looks like "marriage" does not inherently mean the tradition you're referring to. We have a word to describe a religious tradition, one that perhaps Christianity had a large part in shaping, and the word is "marriage". However we also have another word, a legal term, that assigns people different tax benefits, and the word is "marriage".

Two different meanings, but they're the same word. You don't want homosexuals to take part in the religious tradition titled marriage, and the people in charge of administering that tradition have all the power in that decision, but that is entirely different from the marriage that grants legal benefits.

They do not mean the same thing. Receiving the tax benefits granted by marriage can be done without having the religious tradition called marriage. You're giving the former certain attributes that the latter has, not because that's the meaning of the former, but because they happen to contain the same letters, and involve a similar subject, yet are decidedly different things.

In the grand scheme of things, you're speaking a different language from us. You're attaching meaning to the words we're using that you know we aren't intending, and that we know we aren't intending. You're stalling the debate on whether it's a right people should have through word-play. And honestly, I don't find it to be particularly Christian, either.

It's a bit like saying "Well you can have all those things, but legally, my side gets a monopoly on the name!"


I don't think God is so caught up in semantics that he's given the words of your form of Christianity the inherent meaning that you ascribe to them. He's a bit smarter than that.
Last Edited by theunabletable; 05-10-2012 at 03:08 AM. Reason:
  #12 (permalink)   [ ]
Old 05-15-2012, 06:04 AM
Great White North Great White North is a male Prussia Great White North is offline
We are criminals!
Send a message via Skype™ to Great White North
Steam ID: Septemvile
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
View Posts: 4,554
Re: May 2012 Debate: Gay Marriage

Quote:
At this point, is this truly the best implementation of this goal?
Would you have some other way of supporting families outside of tax benefits and the occasional social assistance program?

Quote:
Homosexual couples have ways of increasing the population, sperm banks come to mind.
Arguably, this wouldn't count in the least since all the gay man would be doing in providing a sample that could be taken from nearly anyone on the continent.

Quote:
And they are certainly capable of raising a family.
In many places, homosexuals aren't even allowed to raise a family. Further, when the causes of homosexuality are still out on the jury, do we really want to possibly put impression children in an environment that may increase their homosexual inclinations?

In the nature vs. nurture debate, men are largely made, not born.

Quote:
If our goal is to ease the financial strain of raising a family, why is it the case that a woman in a lesbian relationship cannot receive the same tax benefits if she chooses to impregnate herself in some way?
Because besides the issue stated above, we want to encourage the formation of stable home relationships. Many of the tax benefits that married couples get revolve around sharing tax exemptions. Homosexual marriage is not legal, so the benefits aren't shared.

Further, the only purpose in giving couples benefits prior to the actual birth of the child is to allow them time to create a home before worrying about the strain of children.

Quote:
Being homosexual, or being in a homosexual marriage, does not render you sterile, and it's completely ridiculous to suggest such a thing.
I never suggested that. It's not even what the argument is about.

Quote:
If that were our goal, why not provide the same benefits for everyone by allowing everyone to marry, and give further benefits to those who increase the amount of people in the population? Why don't we remove the tax benefits from those heterosexual couples who aren't able, or decide not, to procreate? If that is indeed the reason for those goals, shouldn't any woman or man tested and found to be sterile have those tax benefits revoked?
Because in order to enforce such a law, we'd need such a gross violation of personal privacy that it'd be reminiscent of living in a dictatorship.

Further, reiterating again that the benefits are for the purpose of procreation, homosexuals don't qualify.

Giving benefits to all, and then further benefits to heterosexuals would create a situation in which the state is spending funds unnecessarily so that homosexuals can feel self satisfied.
Quote:
And would it actually be a noticeable difference if the gay community wasn't quite as supported? With only roughly 3.5% of the population identifying as lesbian, gay, or bisexual (http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.ed...T-Apr-2011.pdf), would that make anything other than a negligible difference to our demographics?
Whether or not homosexuals are 3.5% or 35% is irrelevant. Wasting funds on a smaller scale does not make it justified.

Quote:
In our society, which is built upon the intention of a free and equal populace, it seems that the benefits we might possibly receive (it's all theory as well, no evidence of it causing anything negative to our country, atleast presented so far) from banning gay marriage are comparable to the benefits we might possibly receive from euthanasia of those with inheritable diseases (perhaps even less theoretical benefits). While at the same time containing very many of the same detriments that euthanasia of people with diseases, albeit less exaggerated on both fronts.
I'm going to need you to clarify.

Quote:
In this regard, there are many other things we could do to help our demographic at large that would do much more, while being the root of far less inequality.
Argument from equality is an argument from emotion. In this case, the inequality you address is largely... well not victimless, but rather undistressing.

It's akin to arguing that if poor people get government money, so should we all, in interest of fairness.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lois Bujold
"Your Father calls you to His Court. You need not pack; you go garbed in glory where you stand. He waits eagerly by His palace doors to welcome you, and has prepared a place at His high table by His side, in the company of the great-souled, honoured, and best beloved."
  #13 (permalink)   [ ]
Old 05-15-2012, 08:04 AM
Fluttershy Fluttershy is a female Fluttershy is offline
Too many waifus will destroy your laifu


Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Between a rock and a hard place
View Posts: 6,196
Re: May 2012 Debate: Gay Marriage

Quote:
Originally Posted by MissNanci View Post
The Bible is not fictional. It is the word of God. You are right about the Bible not being a scientific document. Although when it speaks about science it is accurate. We know Harry Potter is written by J.K Rowling and is fictional and extremely scientifically inaccurate. The Bible though is true and scientifcally accurate even though it was written thousands of years ago.
Ah, so a man walking on water and healing the dead is scientifically accurate then.

Quote:
I am trying to convert nobody. Never have I said that gay people should try to turn straight. I was merely stating I do not think they should be allowed to marry. Also I am not intolerant just trying to get people to realize that we are angering God by accepting homosexual marriage. I don't dislike gay people. I dislike the homosexuality not the homosexual. So I do think gay people should be able to have civil unions and get the same rights as in a marriage. I do not understand why this is not enough for homosexuals.
If YOUR God is real and homosexuality is a sin, we're the ones who will be punished for it. Not you. Don't act like everyone on the planet is going to hell for a "sin" that one group of people committed.

Why is a civil union not enough for straight people? If a civil union is really the same as marriage then why not grant us the right to marry?
__________________
  #14 (permalink)   [ ]
Old 05-15-2012, 08:10 AM
Great White North Great White North is a male Prussia Great White North is offline
We are criminals!
Send a message via Skype™ to Great White North
Steam ID: Septemvile
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
View Posts: 4,554
Re: May 2012 Debate: Gay Marriage

Quote:
Why is a civil union not enough for straight people? If a civil union is really the same as marriage then why not grant us the right to marry?
Because for the religious marriage isn't the same as a civil union. In the eyes of the religious, a civil union is a materialistic legal contract between two individuals.

A marriage is a spiritual contract between two individuals and their god.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lois Bujold
"Your Father calls you to His Court. You need not pack; you go garbed in glory where you stand. He waits eagerly by His palace doors to welcome you, and has prepared a place at His high table by His side, in the company of the great-souled, honoured, and best beloved."
Last Edited by Great White North; 05-15-2012 at 08:11 AM. Reason:
  #15 (permalink)   [ ]
Old 05-15-2012, 08:17 AM
Fluttershy Fluttershy is a female Fluttershy is offline
Too many waifus will destroy your laifu


Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Between a rock and a hard place
View Posts: 6,196
Re: May 2012 Debate: Gay Marriage

Quote:
Originally Posted by Great White North View Post
Because for the religious marriage isn't the same as a civil union. In the eyes of the religious, a civil union is a materialistic legal contract between two individuals.

A marriage is a spiritual contract between two individuals and their god.
But marriage isn't necessariy religious. Like I said earlier, if that's the case then why is marriage between two atheists allowed? Why are some people married in fields rather than churches? The reason is that marriage isn't strictly a religious ceremony.
__________________
  #16 (permalink)   [ ]
Old 05-16-2012, 05:25 PM
(AKALink) (AKALink) is a male United States (AKALink) is offline
Zora Warrior
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Giant Deer City
View Posts: 333
Re: May 2012 Debate: Gay Marriage

Same sex marriage should be about the personal bonds that tie the lovers together. To leave people separate would be a crime against true relationships. The church does not have the right to make people be separate just because their have the same genitalia. If marriage is a God given gift to humanity, then we need to change marriage or change its value. Love and connectedness has been lost in modern marriages. To many legal marriages have fallen apart. Why should a religious institution choose who they should and should not marry based on their doctrine?
__________________
1 person liked this post: Fluttershy
  #17 (permalink)   [ ]
Old 05-17-2012, 01:43 AM
theunabletable theunabletable is a male United States theunabletable is offline
(◕‿◕✿)
Send a message via AIM to theunabletable
3DS ID: 3050-7697-1416
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Norwalk, Southern California
View Posts: 4,441
Re: May 2012 Debate: Gay Marriage

Quote:
Would you have some other way of supporting families outside of tax benefits and the occasional social assistance program?
Yeah, for a start, you could give homosexual couples the same benefits as everyone else. I don't really see what it is about being homosexual that makes you unable to have children, or that makes you unable to help increase the population in anyway, or produce upstanding offspring.

Quote:
Arguably, this wouldn't count in the least since all the gay man would be doing in providing a sample that could be taken from nearly anyone on the continent.
I don't see how that makes their act irrelevant. Actually, as a whole, I don't see how it's important at all that their service can be provided by anyone else.

Really, how is that all different from saying that an individual producing more offspring doesn't count in the least, as there is an entire continent to do that for them?

Quote:
In many places, homosexuals aren't even allowed to raise a family.
This isn't exactly a response to "homosexuals are capable of raising a family".

Like, it doesn't solve much if someone says "people are able to do this!" on a topic related to what people are capable of, and then someone else responds "yeah but society doesn't allow people to do that."

I'm kind of saying "This is how it is, we should change it." A valid response isn't really "This is how it is."

Quote:
Further, when the causes of homosexuality are still out on the jury, do we really want to possibly put impression children in an environment that may increase their homosexual inclinations?

In the nature vs. nurture debate, men are largely made, not born.
Yeah, we didn't even know what interracial marriage might cost; how could we allow that bull❤❤❤❤?

I can't think of any large detriments that growing up with homosexual parents would reasonably cause, societally or individually.

Perhaps if you're asserting that it is bad for children, you could provide some evidence?

Quote:
Because besides the issue stated above, we want to encourage the formation of stable home relationships.
I cannot see why homosexuals are excluded from the possibility of stable home relationships.

Quote:
Many of the tax benefits that married couples get revolve around sharing tax exemptions. Homosexual marriage is not legal, so the benefits aren't shared.
"these are the laws, we should change them" "no, these are the laws"

That homosexual marriage isn't legal cannot be considered evidence that homosexual marriage should be illegal. Unless I misunderstood you, anyways, but it does seem very circular.

Quote:
Further, the only purpose in giving couples benefits prior to the actual birth of the child is to allow them time to create a home before worrying about the strain of children.
Oh, cool, then giving homosexual couples more leeway should allow them to be better parents, and create potentially better children, right?

I mean you seem so worried about the effects of homosexuality in parents on their children, the children might as well be in the best environment possible, right?

Quote:
I never suggested that. It's not even what the argument is about.
what I said "Being homosexual, or being in a homosexual marriage, does not render you sterile, and it's completely ridiculous to suggest such a thing."

what you're alluding to (quote from the next paragraph): "Further, reiterating again that the benefits are for the purpose of procreation, homosexuals don't qualify."


If that's not the type of thing you're suggesting, then you're going to have to reelaborate. Because I can't see what it is about being in a homosexual relationship that makes you unable to qualify for procreation.

I mean, the statement "homosexuality makes you sterile" is pretty similar (perhaps a bit less physical, but you get the analogy I'm sure) to "in the realm of procreation, homosexuals don't qualify".

Quote:
Giving benefits to all, and then further benefits to heterosexuals would create a situation in which the state is spending funds unnecessarily so that homosexuals can feel self satisfied.
Why give further benefits to heterosexuals?

Quote:
Whether or not homosexuals are 3.5% or 35% is irrelevant. Wasting funds on a smaller scale does not make it justified.
It doesn't seem like wasting funds. It helps those homosexuals who do procreate.

Quote:
I'm going to need you to clarify.
I'm saying that the benefits of spending very slightly less money are outweighed by the detriments of pure discrimination.

Quote:
Argument from equality is an argument from emotion. In this case, the inequality you address is largely... well not victimless, but rather undistressing.

It's akin to arguing that if poor people get government money, so should we all, in interest of fairness.
Despite having its roots in emotion, we can't just disregard ANY desire for equality within our society on the basis of "it's an appeal to emotion."

We live in a society, and societies are made up of people. People have emotions, society as a whole obeys many social constructs.

Sure, we can't have everything hinge upon the slightest emotional twinge, but to disregard inequality as a variable because it's intertwined with emotions is just as silly.

Many abstract, emotional concepts our governments (or the people who have created our governments, more accurately) have found importance in protecting, such as freedom, or equality. Of course we can't have our discussions boil down to buzzwords like "freedom" or "equality", but just as well, we can't dismiss freedom nor equality because they have a tendency to be buzzwords lol.



I guess the main things I need answered are: Why must homosexuality be comparable to being sterile (or I guess, since you seemed to object to the word sterile, "unable to procreate"). I don't see what it is about homosexuality that makes you unable to reproduce, or raise a family (both of which are the goals that those tax benefits seek to achieve, or make easier, according to you).

And I don't see why an argument that's related to emotion is inherently fallacious, when the subject is an abstract concept that our societies are deeply invested in. At that point it's not mindlessly following our emotions, it's simply being consistent.
1 person liked this post: Loki Laufeyson
  #18 (permalink)   [ ]
Old 05-18-2012, 11:33 AM
interestingdrug interestingdrug is a male England interestingdrug is offline
the one that you took
Join Date: Jan 2012
View Posts: 1,769
Re: May 2012 Debate: Gay Marriage

I was apparently raised by two homosexuals and I support gay marriage. This has come as a shock to me but I will nonetheless engage in debate this evening.

Quote:
How about marriage between a man and his dog?
You mean heterosexual marriage? HEY-OH!

Quote:
I believe the definition of marriage should be left as it is before dysfunctional marriages become the norm.
Marriage is already going down the ❤❤❤❤ter. People care less about it, meaning higher divorce rates and more cohabiting couples. If you're worried about marriage as an institution then there are greater demons than permitting people who obviously value it to take part. Could even improve it, darling.

Quote:
Polygamy is messy and a recipe for disaster. There will be groups of friends marrying so they can all have some sort of financial gain.
Messy indeed. Tissue boxes are not big enough these days.

Quote:
. Legalizing gay marriage nation wide will bring bring forth polygamous marriage and even incestous ones and will be one huge step to the complete destruction of society.
Yeah have you been to Norway recently? Such a disaster!

I think that is wildly speculative and contradictory to what's actually happened in real life in other countries. There's no evidence to suggest that any of that happens. Furthermore, may I add, more states allow cousins to marry than allow gays to marry. At one point cousins marrying was legal nationwide whilst gays couldn't marry at all. Now the inverse is happening and, it would seem, the effects of this have been absolutely minimal.

Marriage is not a fragile base on which society is built, it's a changeable construct which is only a small part of what we consider valuable in the world. Society doesn't collapse when institutions change and utopia doesn't happen when institutions are conserved. Society simply changes and we adapt.

Quote:
Also if America's motto is " In God we trust" then they should trust in God and listen to him when he says that gay marriage is a sin.
America is a secular state.

God's also been very quiet for the last 2000 years anyway.

Quote:
Also it will change the way future generations think about homosexuality itself.
This is a very, very good thing. People kill themselves because they are gay. We should be doing everything we can in order to erode the homophobia that's been ingrained into too many institutions and too many mindsets. Anybody who tries out 'homosexual behaviour' will be disappointed when they discover that they don't instinctively fancy the same sex and they will probably shrug it off and get on with their lives.

Homosexuality isn't something people just wake up and do. "Oh, I saw my friend Johnny doing a bumming yesterday ... butter up boys, let's erode some ancient institutions and destroy the moral fabric of society!" *

* whether this actually happens is uncertain. Probably not.

Quote:
Confused and eager to mate, that's all it is.
Or in love. I heard the gays actually have feelings and aren't walking phalluses/vaginas.

Quote:
A marriage is a spiritual contract between two individuals and their god.
Sounds like POLYGAMY!

Have to go, Daddy and Daddy are using the leather whips again and I must go pray.
Last Edited by interestingdrug; 05-18-2012 at 12:33 PM. Reason:
  #19 (permalink)   [ ]
Old 05-27-2012, 03:21 PM
Jaime Lannister Sweden Jaime Lannister is offline
Kingslayer

Join Date: Jun 2006
View Posts: 28,440
Re: May 2012 Debate: Gay Marriage

Thank you for participating in the first monthly ZU debate.

The winner of this debate is theunabletable. Now, I had to judge this debate by myself. For anyone curious, this is how I done it:

First off I eliminated the people who signed up but ultimately did not post. I then went through and eliminated people who only posted once. After all, you can't really win a debate if you don't refute points! This brought me down to people who made at least two posts:


Pawptart
MissNancy
Great White North
Brina
Sollux
Tavros
theunabletable


Next I looked for two things: using sources, and having a compelling argument. This boiled it down to Pawptart, theunabletable, Great White North.

It was tough for me to make a decision. Pawptart had sources and his points were not rebutted. Great White North, while not using sources, still debated very well. theunabletable used sources and, ultimately, responded to points brought up against her.

So ultimately theunabletable was the victor. This was a good run and I think I learned a few things. First of all having six "sides", so to speak, doesn't seem to work out well. In the future I think there will only be two or three sides unless there are drastically different approaches to an issue. I also think to pick the winner I'm going to look not only at the actual arguments presented, but any evidence they bring forth. I will also be looking to see if they did not respond to a counter-argument brought against them.

Thank you all for playing. As scheduled, next month should be a little more fun. In July we shall have another serious debate.

For any questions, suggestions, or feedback, please VM me. Any discussion about the debate could go into The War Room.
__________________
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Advertisement

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:19 AM.

Copyright © 2014 Zelda Universe - Privacy Statement -