• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

gay marriage...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Technocratic_Utilitarian said:
They are being denied the right to marry a consenting individual of their choice. That's a violation of constitutional protections and freedom of association.

I'm really trying to stay away from the "slippery slope" thing here, but if it's a "right to marry a consenting individual of their choice" issue, what is the logical argument that would limit the number of "consenting adults" that could enter into a marital contract?
 
Busta said:
You leave yourself wide open for the "slippery slope" (correctly pronounced "Logical Conclusion") argument by invoking the whole "equal rights" issue. In order to make progress tward convincing others to support gay 'marriage, you will have to promote it in a positive, beneficial-to-all light.

Unintended consequences of legislation are allways an issue. Gay 'marriage is no exception. I believe that you thought that I was using an abuse of law argument; that was not the direction that I intended to go.

By your logic straight marriage or gay marriage would lead to a slippery slope. Let me guess, this slippery slope leads to polygamy. Polygamy is another issue altogether that would have to be argued on it's own merits and like I said earleir, the argument against straight marriage leading to that makes just as much sense with gay marriage. The government getting involved with straight marriage opens up the door to polygamy just as much as gay marriage could. Quit tip-toeing around here, tell me why your religious beliefs should trump the Constitution.

Here is the direction that I wanted to explore. I would like to discuss any options that you can think of, but if you want to go another way, so be it. Just let me know.

Posted by Busta;
"Lets look at this in a different light:
Civil Unions include both homosexuals and heterosexuals. Homosexuals claim that the right to marry someone of the same gender is a civil right being denied by the current definition of marriage. If the current definition of marriage is denying homosexuals the right to marry someone of the same gender, than the current definition of marriage is denying heterosexuals this right, also.

"Why should heterosexuals persue a right to marry someone of the same gender?"

Regardless of what you're waiting for me to say here there is no answer that could justify denying same-sex couples equal application of the law. We are all Americans: one nation, under the Constitution.
 
Columbus Wrote:
By your logic straight marriage or gay marriage would lead to a slippery slope. Let me guess, this slippery slope leads to polygamy. Polygamy is another issue altogether that would have to be argued on it's own merits and like I said earleir, the argument against straight marriage leading to that makes just as much sense with gay marriage. The government getting involved with straight marriage opens up the door to polygamy just as much as gay marriage could. Quit tip-toeing around here, tell me why your religious beliefs should trump the Constitution.

Obviously God's law trumps man's! That's why! Halleluya!
 
I'm really trying to stay away from the "slippery slope" thing here, but if it's a "right to marry a consenting individual of their choice" issue, what is the logical argument that would limit the number of "consenting adults" that could enter into a marital contract?

There is none, since it's irrelevant as a concern. Don't you understand that you have no damn business telling others whom with they can associate and marry unless it is causing objective harm to others period.

The only thing that can be used in argument against polygamy is that it is impossible for employers to afford, so regardless of how many people you marry, you can only get the same exact benefits as with 2 people. That's reasonable.

Ya dig it?
 
Technocratic_Utilitarian said:
There is none, since it's irrelevant as a concern. Don't you understand that you have no damn business telling others whom with they can associate and marry unless it is causing objective harm to others period.

The only thing that can be used in argument against polygamy is that it is impossible for employers to afford, so regardless of how many people you marry, you can only get the same exact benefits as with 2 people. That's reasonable.

Ya dig it?

And who's to stop two married couples from having a polyamorous relationship?
 
Technocratic_Utilitarian said:
you have no damn business telling others whom with they can associate and marry unless it is causing objective harm to others period.

Well, sure he can tell them. Like his kids for example, but he has no business legislating that.
 
Atheist archaeologists would disagree with you about the accuracy and validity of the bible.

"Religions are not universally applicable ethical doctrines, and they rely expressly on Appeal to Authority from a being who likely doesn't exist."
That's a very nice opinion, but the bible remains to be your primary hurtle in convincing me to support gay 'marriage.

"Your "conversion" is not required for justice to take place."
Justice is in place now.
My conversion is required if you want me to support gay 'marriage.

"Yes, Abnormal != wrong (as in immoral)."
No, it doesn't. Abnormal just refers to a variation for the norm. Morality is not included in it's definition.

"Agnoststic? What does that have to do with anything? That's a Red Herring, since Agnostic means: don't know either way."
Yup. If you have made up your mind, and the thought police don't agree with your decision or with the path that brought you there, then the only way to learn anything from further conversation is to explore non-faith/moral/personal conviction arguments.
Ultimately, if you take God out of the argument, then there is no argument.

I know full well that there is a difference between military term uses and governmental term uses. I made the reference to "assult weapon" as an example of propaganda leading to the Brady Bill; I wasn't speaking about the military at all.

"Dictionary also says your full of ****:"
Here we go with the personal attacks......you wish to call me on Logical Fallacies when you commit them your self? (Attacking the Person)
 
Columbusite said:
By your logic straight marriage or gay marriage would lead to a slippery slope. Let me guess, this slippery slope leads to polygamy. Polygamy is another issue altogether that would have to be argued on it's own merits and like I said earleir, the argument against straight marriage leading to that makes just as much sense with gay marriage. The government getting involved with straight marriage opens up the door to polygamy just as much as gay marriage could. Quit tip-toeing around here, tell me why your religious beliefs should trump the Constitution.

Regardless of what you're waiting for me to say here there is no answer that could justify denying same-sex couples equal application of the law. We are all Americans: one nation, under the Constitution.

The "slippery slope" has to do with invoking the 14th. Amendment, not gay 'marriage its self.

And uh...it's "one nation, under God".
 
Technocratic_Utilitarian said:
There is none, since it's irrelevant as a concern. Don't you understand that you have no damn business telling others whom with they can associate and marry unless it is causing objective harm to others period.

The only thing that can be used in argument against polygamy is that it is impossible for employers to afford, so regardless of how many people you marry, you can only get the same exact benefits as with 2 people. That's reasonable.

Ya dig it?

Since gay 'marriage is a matter of public law, and I am a member of the public, it is my business. 1 voice, 1 vote.
 
Atheist archaeologists would disagree with you about the accuracy and validity of the bible.


OH NO! Archaeologists will find some accuracies in the bible! Holy ****! Call the Pope! I can find archaeological and social accuracies in Huck Finn too, yet I don't use it in reality.

PS: there isn't even any realistic evidence Jeebus existed. That's probably a defunct myth too.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1811332,00.html

As well, the Papacy has long since declared that the Bible is not accurate on many accounts. Whodathunk--the Bible? Wrong? Duh!
----------------------------------

"Religions are not universally applicable ethical doctrines, and they rely expressly on Appeal to Authority from a being who likely doesn't exist."
That's a very nice opinion, but the bible remains to be your primary hurtle in convincing me to support gay 'marriage.

Ethics isn't a democracy. I don't have to "convince" the masses of something for it to be moral or immoral. I cannot convince a Creationtard he's a moron, any more than I can convince you that you are wrong. There's nothing anyone could do to falsify your belief, thus it is pointless.

This isn't cultural relativism, and your "opinion" of the law doesn't matter. The law is fact; the government is violating it illegally. Facts don't disappear because you ignore them.
-----------------------------------

"Your "conversion" is not required for justice to take place."
Justice is in place now.
My conversion is required if you want me to support gay 'marriage.

No, Justice is not in place. Injustice is in place, and eventually, SCOTUS will squash your hate and prejudice. It's up to the courts, who have already spoken and begun to dismantle your bullshit. You have no power, and soon, your little 13th century christian world-view will go bye-bye. Then I will have won.
----------------------------------

"Yes, Abnormal != wrong (as in immoral)."
No, it doesn't. Abnormal just refers to a variation for the norm. Morality is not included in it's definition.

Thus, mentioning abnormal is a Red Herring. Thank you for that useless introduction.
---------------------------------

"Dictionary also says your full of ****:"
Here we go with the personal attacks......you wish to call me on Logical Fallacies when you commit them your self? (Attacking the Person)

1. Tuo Quoe Fallacy
2. Style over Substance fallacy


I committed no fallacy, but you did just now. Keep it up. I have yet to see a logical argument from you.


Note* Saying your full of **** is rude, but not a fallacy. Ad Hominem is when you attack on character of an individual and assume he's wrong because he has "poor character." I said you are full of ****, and I have already explained why. You just can't comprehend that. That's not my problem. Neither fits the definition of Ad Hominem.
 
Since gay 'marriage is a matter of public law, and I am a member of the public, it is my business. 1 voice, 1 vote.

We don't live a democracy. We live in a Federal Democratic Republic with checks and balances. Your idiotic assumption that majority rules was denied by Madison in the Federalist Papers. You cannot simply "vote" the minority's rights away. And don't spew that horseshit you call an argument saying they aren't doing that. You know better. Stop lying.
 
Technocratic_Utilitarian said:
We don't live a democracy. We live in a Federal Democratic Republic with checks and balances. Your idiotic assumption that majority rules was denied by Madison in the Federalist Papers. You cannot simply "vote" the minority's rights away. And don't spew that horseshit you call an argument saying they aren't doing that. You know better. Stop lying.

Such hate in your posts....If I really hated gay people then I would just submit my posts without spell-checking them first....now that's torture.

As for 1 voice, 1 vote: There called Ballot Initiatives.
 
Such hate in your posts....If I really hated gay people then I would just submit my posts without spell-checking them first....now that's torture.

As for 1 voice, 1 vote: There called Ballot Initiatives.


Yes. I do hate. I hate your primitive christianity and your silly 13th century mentality. You are a tad better than those Islamic Social-Fundies who force women to wear burkas in the sweltering heat. You are sick, and the illogicality of your position is the problem.

I don't care about your ballot initiatives. They do not override the Constitution of the United States. If you try, you will lose.
 
Last edited:
Busta said:
Since gay 'marriage is a matter of public law, and I am a member of the public, it is my business. 1 voice, 1 vote.

Umm, you shouldn't (should be "can't" but we just look at our history) be able to vote on who the Constitution applies to. This is not a democracy, it is a federal republic. If we could vote on such a thing, the South would have interracial marriage bans and segregation to this day.
 
Last edited:
Busta said:
The "slippery slope" has to do with invoking the 14th. Amendment, not gay 'marriage its self.

And uh...it's "one nation, under God".

Didn't I already explain that? And you being a fellow American I'll let you in on a little secret: our country is based on the Constitution, not God. "under the Constitution" is 100% correct while "under God" depends on your religious views.
 
Last edited:
Technocratic_Utilitarian said:
We don't live a democracy. We live in a Federal Democratic Republic with checks and balances. Your idiotic assumption that majority rules was denied by Madison in the Federalist Papers. You cannot simply "vote" the minority's rights away. And don't spew that horseshit you call an argument saying they aren't doing that. You know better. Stop lying.


Oh really, Madison denied rights of the majority? Show me some quotes. The one who wrote most of the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton, believed strongly in the rights of the majority and was also a Christian. Nobody's talking about taking ALL votes away from the minority but our goal should be to find a healthy balance. Wouldn't you agree?
 
Under God also wasn't part of the original saying, "under GOd" isn't in our law code (rather culture), and Under God doesn't say what God. It can be Utilitis Maximus.
 
Technocratic_Utilitarian said:
Yes. I do hate. I hate your primitive christianity and your silly 13th century mentality. You are a tad better than those Islamic Social-Fundies who force women to wear burkas in the sweltering heat. You are sick, and the illogicality of your position is the problem.
You're problem is that you lump all Christians together and you have a over bloated ego as an atheist, probably cause you really just feel insecure deep down. Christians out number you and they also happen to hold temendous political weight in this country and in other countries as well. That's just something you're going to have to come to terms with because they aren't going to go away. If you don't like how Christians hold public office, than by all means try to take your atheist ass and run for office. As far as your hate goes, that's really nobody's problem but your own. Hate in any form is wrong. I don't hate people that disagree with me or have different religious views. I do personally think Muslims are silly for making women wear those clothes but it's their culture and I have respect and tolerance for that. You're not going to change them by telling them that they are stupid and putting hate on them. They need to be embraced with compassion and educated, not wipped into atheism by force. You liberal atheists often talk about how we should show tolerance for gays and people who are different than the majority, yet you have not one ounce of tolerance for people that you think hate you. You claim religious people have committed atrocities but atheists have also had their fair share of doing wrong. Genghis Khan, Adolf Hitler, and Joseph Stalin were atheists. Don't even try to tell me Hitler was a Christian because I've studied his life and I've come to the much educated opinion that he was a nihilist above anything else.

If you must know, despite being a Christian, I do not think homosexuality is inherently immoral and I also think homosexuals can be Christian. It's just the marriage part that I haven't yet come to accept. Man. Usually you make good arguments and stuff but in this thread you're just acting like a dick. Congratulations.
 
George_Washington said:
Also, it makes little sense to me why homosexuals want to have children when they know full well they can't produce them naturally. If they wanted to have children that badly then why not just mate with the opposite sex? And don't say it's just cause they're not attracted to the opposite sex because being gay is a choice as far as I know.

If it is a choice to be gay, then, at any time, you could choose to be gay.

If being gay is a choice, then it is also a choice to be heterosexual.
 
MrFungus420 said:
If it is a choice to be gay, then, at any time, you could choose to be gay.

If being gay is a choice, then it is also a choice to be heterosexual.

Well, then if homosexuality isn't a choice, then that's fine. But it still doesn't prove why gays should be allowed to marry.
 
Re: perversion of homosexual marriage...

MrFungus420 said:
They mention the "Laws of Nature", but do not enumerate them.
That is because Natural Law is the opposite of codified Statutes and Ordinances. Natural Law requires a "common understanding". The closest that I can think of to an enumeration of Natural Laws, would be Newton's laws of phisics, Einstein's E=Mc2, Proven chemical interactions and attributes, known Psychological attributes, known Astronomical Phisics....and similar.

The "We The People" of Natural Law would be the elusive "Theory of Everything".

Faith, of any flavor, is the abstract persuit of what is unknown. It is because of this reaching for what is not yet understood, or what one can not quantify by current measures, that some people can not illustrait their objection on a given issue. They can grasp it, but they can not describe it.

It is precisely because of this lack of ability to communicate the abstract, that only those who are close enough to your point of view can begin to try to focus in on what you are referring to.

I know what D-Hard is talking about when he mentions "laws of nature", but I am only little more capable of expressing it then he.
 
Technocratic_Utilitarian said:
Yes. I do hate. I hate your primitive christianity and your silly 13th century mentality. You are a tad better than those Islamic Social-Fundies who force women to wear burkas in the sweltering heat. You are sick, and the illogicality of your position is the problem.

I don't care about your ballot initiatives. They do not override the Constitution of the United States. If you try, you will lose.

I would say that Army-of-God is sick by endorsing the assassination of abortion doctores. I am a far cry from Army-of-God because I stick to the legislative possess, instead of suicide bombing...oops, I mien, sniping those who I disagree with.

As for "my" ballot initiatives, Californians have been able to keep gay 'marriage off the books, so far, with ballot initiatives....and I don't live in California.

Ballot Initiative are both successfull and not just *mine*.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom