UPNetwork  

Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > Debate

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-14-2012, 03:25 PM   #26
Firewater
Volcano Badge
 
Firewater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,727
Send a message via Skype™ to Firewater
short and sweet because I'm not getting involved that much.

yes, gay marriage should be legalized and they should get the same, full 100% equal rights that heterosexual marriages get, ect.

I don't really feel like yet another bitchfest with unownmew, but...

Quote:
If we look to history regarding widely accepted gay union, we have a couple sources, but, the looks of them are not so appealing. Greece and Rome, widely homosexual, but, also widely supported what we would consider today to be "child molestation," relations between a man and a much younger boy (even as young as seven). What proof can be given that will show that acceptance of same-sex marriage would not also end up with practices like this sometime in the future? I've often heard the claim, it's fine as long as the parties are consenting adults, and no one gets hurt. What makes one so confident that the future generations will share that moral? When history is already showing us that as the generations continue, morals are pushed further and further away, and made more and more lax?
I just would like to point out a few things.

1. Society seems to have moved far, far away from this being termed acceptable, even with the "reduction" of morals you appear to have claimed throughout history. So the Greeks/Romans thought this was ok, well times changed since then.

2. Where's the evidence? I mean, it appears that notable groups, such as the Catholic Church for one, are trying to protect those pedophiles in their midst, instead of fixing the problem, and secondly, I don't know about you, but I don't think that pedophillia's increased bcos some states have legalized gay marriage.

3. Once again, how do we know that what you consider as "degrading morals" are actually reforms to the majority of the population.

4. since when has the church been the legal authority of all matters in the United States? I ask this because of the fact that it isn't the 1600's, the pope/other religious authority doesn't have total control over our politics (no matter how much the GOP tries to insert religion into politics), so why should the church be the deciding factor for blocking a certain part of the populaiton from the same rights as everyone else? It's stupid things like this that make me regret my own religion sometimes

5- last question. If God created everyone and everything then that would mean that he created GLBTQ people as well. Wouldn't that mean, since one of the most important ways to be obedient and to be a true worshiper of his teachings is to love your neighbor as yourself. So aren't you disobeying God's word by extending this hatred towards gay people.

also, to pre-empt the other claims of "god made sodomy/gay sex a sin that's equal to death"- that's the old testament, not the new testament- the way that the bible's been interpreted in most circles now is more towards the new testament than the old.
__________________
PASBL: Record: 61-55-8, 361.5 TP, 174 KO, 2.5 SP, Trainer Level 5
My ASB pokes
Firewater is offline  
Old 05-14-2012, 05:00 PM   #27
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firewater View Post

1. Society seems to have moved far, far away from this being termed acceptable, even with the "reduction" of morals you appear to have claimed throughout history. So the Greeks/Romans thought this was ok, well times changed since then.
Yeah times changed since the Greeks and Romans, changing towards what we have now, and now it's changing back. You say that since it changed since then, after changing back, it will change again.
So you support any length of period, however short it may be, of future history where Pedophilia is an accepted practice?

Quote:
2. Where's the evidence? I mean, it appears that notable groups, such as the Catholic Church for one, are trying to protect those pedophiles in their midst, instead of fixing the problem, and secondly, I don't know about you, but I don't think that pedophillia's increased bcos some states have legalized gay marriage.
That's my question. Since you are the one advocating the change, and I am for keeping the status quo, it is YOUR responsibility to present the evidence that such a change will not be harmful to society down the road.

And by "down the road" I'm talking 2-3 generations, not 1-2 years. Things are still in their infancy, it is foolhardy to consider the current situation as evident to anything in the future when it comes to full fruition.

Quote:
3. Once again, how do we know that what you consider as "degrading morals" are actually reforms to the majority of the population.
Huh? You lost me here. Are you saying that what I consider eroding morals might actually be moral corrections, and what's considered moral now, is really immoral? Or are you saying I don't know that the eroding morals will affect the majority of the society?


Quote:
4. since when has the church been the legal authority of all matters in the United States? I ask this because of the fact that it isn't the 1600's, the pope/other religious authority doesn't have total control over our politics (no matter how much the GOP tries to insert religion into politics), so why should the church be the deciding factor for blocking a certain part of the populaiton from the same rights as everyone else? It's stupid things like this that make me regret my own religion sometimes
Who brought church authority over government up? Certainly not me. Its a moral issue. No rights are being denied anyone, anywhere, none whatsoever. A gay male has every right to marry a female as a straight male under the law. There is no inequality.

Quote:
5- last question. If God created everyone and everything then that would mean that he created GLBTQ people as well. Wouldn't that mean, since one of the most important ways to be obedient and to be a true worshiper of his teachings is to love your neighbor as yourself. So aren't you disobeying God's word by extending this hatred towards gay people.
God created everyone, good and evil. Does that mean evil people are good? No, it does not.

Loving your neighbor as yourself means to respect them as a fellow human, Which I try to do. Hate the Sin, love the Sinner. But that does not mean we facilitate the sin either. Not recognizing same-sex marriage legally does in no way disrespect a homosexual as a human.



Think of it this way:
If A = B and B = C, then must not A = C?
Legally recognizing a marriage of a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, as the same as a marriage between a man and a woman, creates an environment where men and woman are no longer legally and socially different entities.

In a society as such we are, where there are so many sue happy people trying to shape society, such a lack of legal separation will create a platform where all social and legal differences we currently have in society between men and woman can be systematically eliminated under a reasonable premise. No more separate bathrooms for men and woman, woman open to be drafted in the army, employers won't be able to hire out positions to females only (Men will be able to be Hooter's Girls), sexual harassment will diminish in seriousness, rape of a woman/girl no different then rape of a male/boy, etc. etc.

Woman are not the same as Men, marriage must remain legally recognizing only a male and a female. But no one is denying Gays the ability to have legal unions, which are not recognized as marriages.
unownmew is offline  
Old 05-14-2012, 06:50 PM   #28
Firewater
Volcano Badge
 
Firewater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,727
Send a message via Skype™ to Firewater
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
Yeah times changed since the Greeks and Romans, changing towards what we have now, and now it's changing back. You say that since it changed since then, after changing back, it will change again.
So you support any length of period, however short it may be, of future history where Pedophilia is an accepted practice?
-no I don't support Pedophilia, my argument is that society's changed to where it's accepted as a horrific thing, nothing has changed to shift back to that period of time. Second, prove that what my side of the argument supports will lead to more pedophilia.


Quote:
Huh? You lost me here. Are you saying that what I consider eroding morals might actually be moral corrections, and what's considered moral now, is really immoral? Or are you saying I don't know that the eroding morals will affect the majority of the society?
the first one, denying people the right to get married to the person that they feel truly in love with is immoral.

Quote:
Who brought church authority over government up? Certainly not me. Its a moral issue. No rights are being denied anyone, anywhere, none whatsoever. A gay male has every right to marry a female as a straight male under the law. There is no inequality.
yes it is. Your interpretation forces people to hide their true feelings/identities, because it's supposedly not recognized- that's why any legislation's better than the Status Squo now- even if gay men can supposedly marry a woman, that's not who they are or want to be at all- your idea creates more pain and suffering for more people- I mean think about it, look at all of those scandals that are created by a prominent leader being exposed for being gay- not only does that affect him/her and the person they "cheated" on their current spouse for, think about the significant damage it would do to their current spouse, or others in their family- why even allow that situation to occur in the first place?

Quote:
God created everyone, good and evil. Does that mean evil people are good? No, it does not.
yes, people do horrible things intending to do the right thing. There's a difference between a serial killer who made the decision to kill lots of people for no reason, and a person who was manipulated, or born in a way that caused people to believe they were evil/led them to perform evil actions. At the same time, God gave everyone the opportunity to choose our own actions- it's called free will. He gave us our bodies, our minds and every part of us that was created, including our sexuality and our choice to act on it.

Quote:
Loving your neighbor as yourself means to respect them as a fellow human, Which I try to do. Hate the Sin, love the Sinner. But that does not mean we facilitate the sin either. Not recognizing same-sex marriage legally does in no way disrespect a homosexual as a human.
like I said earlier, god created everyone, their sexuality, their genetics, everything. How do we know that homosexuality is evil, if he created everyone. It looks to me that you're putting yourself into some pretty steep ground, because either god created sexuality, which means that he created both hetero and homosexuality, which means that something went terribly wrong, and/or that that would mean that evolution is true, and god doesn't exist- meaning that we are genetically coded and there's nothing we can do to fix it.

so which one is it? Did god, for some unknown reason create a people he decided to destroy for no reason after Sodom and Gomorrah, and or changed his mind about? or does god not exist and most current scientists are correct and some people are genetically determined to be gay?

Quote:
Think of it this way:
If A = B and B = C, then must not A = C?
Legally recognizing a marriage of a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, as the same as a marriage between a man and a woman, creates an environment where men and woman are no longer legally and socially different entities.
how? where's the proof?
Since when have men and women been determined as different legal groups? are we back in the days where women have to sign over all of their property to their husband when they are married? or they can't vote? or is it that they need to stay in the kitchen? tell me dude, how far back are we in history, because this can't be 2012?

secondly, some states have already legalized gay marriage, and so have other countries- where is this troubling environment?
Quote:
In a society as such we are, where there are so many sue happy people trying to shape society, such a lack of legal separation will create a platform where all social and legal differences we currently have in society between men and woman can be systematically eliminated under a reasonable premise. No more separate bathrooms for men and woman, woman open to be drafted in the army, employers won't be able to hire out positions to females only (Men will be able to be Hooter's Girls), sexual harassment will diminish in seriousness, rape of a woman/girl no different then rape of a male/boy, etc. etc.
...really.

really?

REALLY?

Where in the fuck did anything that I or anyone else say, lead to this inane babble you mention in this original paragraph. Where does the support of gay marriage, or equal protections/rights for all citizens lead to uni-sex bathrooms, I mean, we've had plenty of civil rights legislation, and they still seperate bathrooms.

What's wrong with drafting women into the army as well? the US army already accepts women who sign up voluntarily, why not go the next step.

and please, please tell me how decreasing job discrimination is a bad thing?

Also, I don't know about you but sexual assault, I feel would actually be taken far more seriously if there were more legislation, or at least acknowledgements in terms of equality for straight people/LGBTQ people, or even men/women. Also, how does a world that I support lead to everyone thinking that rape/assault is ok, or less of a horrific thing than now- I mean, even if this is supposedly not taken care of now, it's very obvious that in earlier times, even less would have been done in these circumstances because people did not care about it as much as they do now.

then again, you apparently want to go back to the good ol' days where women stayed in the kitchen, the negroes weren't considered people, and being homosexual was a disease you could beat out of a kid or send them to a camp to. Is it true? I don't know, I'll expect some sort of angry retort that you will deny wanting society to look like that, but everything that I've heard from you in this and the other thread doesn't suggest anything different.

Quote:
Woman are not the same as Men, marriage must remain legally recognizing only a male and a female. But no one is denying Gays the ability to have legal unions, which are not recognized as marriages.
... how does a legal union solve a damn thing? yes, in theory, if legal unions gave the same rights as marriage, sure, I used to support only legal unions, ect. But at the same time, people should have the right to get married to whomever they choose, and since we can't even get our original attempt to equalize everything right (not giving legal unions same rights as married couples), then we may as well go the full distance so we don't have to do the extra work (aka legalize gay marriage)


...damn it, I lied to myself.
__________________
PASBL: Record: 61-55-8, 361.5 TP, 174 KO, 2.5 SP, Trainer Level 5
My ASB pokes
Firewater is offline  
Old 05-14-2012, 06:55 PM   #29
Ethereal
Creepy Hand Person
 
Ethereal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,988
Send a message via AIM to Ethereal Send a message via MSN to Ethereal Send a message via Skype™ to Ethereal
I think we should all take a moment again to realize that this is turning to another "running on UM's wild tangents" thread before this gets longer than it has to.
__________________
Ethereal is offline  
Old 05-14-2012, 07:43 PM   #30
Firewater
Volcano Badge
 
Firewater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,727
Send a message via Skype™ to Firewater
...so i'm not the only one noticing that, though I'm kind of guilty of falling for that more than once as well.
__________________
PASBL: Record: 61-55-8, 361.5 TP, 174 KO, 2.5 SP, Trainer Level 5
My ASB pokes
Firewater is offline  
Old 05-14-2012, 09:04 PM   #31
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firewater View Post
-no I don't support Pedophilia, my argument is that society's changed to where it's accepted as a horrific thing, nothing has changed to shift back to that period of time. Second, prove that what my side of the argument supports will lead to more pedophilia.
I'm not the one attacking the status quo. You want your new age, how about you do the proving that it won't turn into another Moral-less society.
I'm not the one arguing to change anything, it's already clear that if we keep the status quo, the same society that exists today will exist tomorrow (tomorrow being generations down the road). you want to change the status quo, so You prove that the change will be beneficial and worth aiming towards.

And this is what makes me conservative, because I want to know beforehand if the changes made to society will effect it for the better before we make them. Liberals just want to charge right in without thinking it through.


[Spoilered for Brevity]
Spoiler: show
Quote:
the first one, denying people the right to get married to the person that they feel truly in love with is immoral.
On the contrary. Marriage was never designed around "love," it is a social institution designed for the continuation of the species- that is, the creation of a family. Marrying the "person you love" is a newer creation, otherwise there would never be such a thing as an "Arranged Marriage."

Now, marrying a person you love is the ideal, but, love can be found for anyone, regardless. There's no such thing as a "soulmate." Real Love is work and a conscious choice, not a mix of chemicals that make you feel good. Even a Heterosexual can find it in themselves, if they choose, to love another of the same gender, and the same goes for homosexuals- finding it in themselves to love a member of the opposite gender. Orientation is only what initially draws a person. It is the conscious choice of the person that determines whether they will be exclusive to their own gender or exclusive to the opposite.


Quote:
yes it is. Your interpretation forces people to hide their true feelings/identities, because it's supposedly not recognized- that's why any legislation's better than the Status Squo now- even if gay men can supposedly marry a woman, that's not who they are or want to be at all- your idea creates more pain and suffering for more people- I mean think about it, look at all of those scandals that are created by a prominent leader being exposed for being gay- not only does that affect him/her and the person they "cheated" on their current spouse for, think about the significant damage it would do to their current spouse, or others in their family- why even allow that situation to occur in the first place?
And so you reveal, you're not interested in equality, you're interested in "fairness." Well, Fairness has never been a natural human right, nor can it ever be so.

My interpretation forces nothing on people. If a man is going to cheat on his wife because he thinks he's gay, he shouldn't have married to begin with. Nothing wrong with staying single, and having uncommitted gay sex on the side- no different then having the affair. But I'll rail against infidelity in any case, male or female, if the person couldn't keep their commitments, they should take a good look at themselves before making such promises.

As for what gay people want? That's entirely their own choice, and not some sort of biological programming. There's nothing keeping a Gay man from wanting to marry a woman except his own self-made desires.



Quote:
yes, people do horrible things intending to do the right thing. There's a difference between a serial killer who made the decision to kill lots of people for no reason, and a person who was manipulated, or born in a way that caused people to believe they were evil/led them to perform evil actions. At the same time, God gave everyone the opportunity to choose our own actions- it's called free will. He gave us our bodies, our minds and every part of us that was created, including our sexuality and our choice to act on it.
You just completely contradicted your position.
Yes, God made us as we are, and gave us the opportunity to choose our own actions, either to overcome our sexuality or to give-in to it. He also gives us commandments to follow, regardless of our personal troubles.


Quote:
like I said earlier, god created everyone, their sexuality, their genetics, everything. How do we know that homosexuality is evil, if he created everyone. It looks to me that you're putting yourself into some pretty steep ground, because either god created sexuality, which means that he created both hetero and homosexuality, which means that something went terribly wrong, and/or that that would mean that evolution is true, and god doesn't exist- meaning that we are genetically coded and there's nothing we can do to fix it.
Or, you're missing the point of being placed on Earth by God. Earth is a testing ground, where we learn and grow, striving to become perfect people. Each person is born with their own set of challenges, weaknesses, strengths, and talents. Sexuality sometimes being one of those challenges. It is our responsibility to overcome our challenges, and obey his Commandments. God would not command anything we were incapable of doing even with his help. Furthermore, he gave us agency so that we are not limited by our biological genetic make-up. Neither Gays nor Straights are pigeonholed into a set orientation at birth, they are only given tendencies that can be overcome.

That is of course, if you're going to pull the "God made it so so it must be right" argument.

Quote:
so which one is it? Did god, for some unknown reason create a people he decided to destroy for no reason after Sodom and Gomorrah, and or changed his mind about? or does god not exist and most current scientists are correct and some people are genetically determined to be gay?
Or perhaps it is as I mentioned above. That Orientation is a challenge given to a select few as part of their personally tailored learning curriculum on Earth because God knows that they could overcome it if they chose to, and will greatly reward them if they do.


Quote:
how? where's the proof?
Since when have men and women been determined as different legal groups? are we back in the days where women have to sign over all of their property to their husband when they are married? or they can't vote? or is it that they need to stay in the kitchen? tell me dude, how far back are we in history, because this can't be 2012?
Being treated as a different legal groups does not mean treated unequally. You're jumping to conclusions. There are very evident differences between men and woman, most notably the physical ones, which require slightly different treatment legally and socially. NOT unequal or disrespectful treatment, just "different." IMO, women generally are deserving of more respect then men, because of their role in childbearing.

Quote:
secondly, some states have already legalized gay marriage, and so have other countries- where is this troubling environment?
OBVIOUSLY, as I have said countless times before, such outcomes can ONLY be observed in the LONG RUN, generally a generation or two down the road. You can hardly expect to see it after just a year or two. -.-



Quote:
Where in the fuck did anything that I or anyone else say, lead to this inane babble you mention in this original paragraph. Where does the support of gay marriage, or equal protections/rights for all citizens lead to uni-sex bathrooms, I mean, we've had plenty of civil rights legislation, and they still seperate bathrooms.
No one said anything, it was appended to the end. Furthermore, the leading occurs because the legal definition of a man is equal to the legal definition of a woman, and such a lack of distinction opens up numerous pathways for people to sue in order to alter the culture. Under current societal standards, it is outrageous to consider a male trying to be hired as a Hooter's Girl (true story), but with men and women being the same thing, there is a legal basis to sue and WIN such a court case, and thereby fundamentally alter Society. You can not say with any assureity that such an occurrence will never happen, and because of that, I can say with assureity that, given enough time, it WILL occur.

Quote:
What's wrong with drafting women into the army as well? the US army already accepts women who sign up voluntarily, why not go the next step.
Ask a woman that. Also, tell them they'll be sharing the barracks and shower rooms with men. Let's see how they respond.

Quote:
and please, please tell me how decreasing job discrimination is a bad thing?
So you support letting men be hired as Hooter's Girls? Or Renaissance Bar Maids? If that's your position, I'm done with you.

Also, I don't know about you but sexual assault, I feel would actually be taken far m
Quote:
ore seriously if there were more legislation, or at least acknowledgements in terms of equality for straight people/LGBTQ people, or even men/women. Also, how does a world that I support lead to everyone thinking that rape/assault is ok, or less of a horrific thing than now- I mean, even if this is supposedly not taken care of now, it's very obvious that in earlier times, even less would have been done in these circumstances because people did not care about it as much as they do now.
Nope, it will be marginalized, I guarantee it. No one cries about a man being "sexually harrassed," and with women equaling men because A=B and B=C so A=C, I can assure you, a woman will be told to get over it just like a man would.

[no need to respond to the spoilered part, I summarized the main points below.]

Key point, the "God made us Gay" Argument: You said God created everyone the way they are, sexuality and orientation included, and also gave them the agency to choose. You're absolutely right. He gave both gays and straights to ability to choose to deny their sexuality or not, to overcome it, or give in to it. He also gave both gays and straights a list of commandments to follow, and unless new revelation from God countermands what he's said previously, what he's said still stands.
If you're going to pull this argument, you need to understand that God placed us on Earth in order to learn and grown to strive to become perfect beings. Each person is given a specifically tailored set of challenges, strengths and weaknesses, that they need to overcome. For some, it may be pedophilia, for others, it may be homosexuality, for still others, it may be obsession with sex-gay or straight, or drugs, or a particularly difficult household to grow up in. It is then our responsibility to overcome our challenges and trials, and obey the commandments we are given as best we can. For gay and straight people.

As for your other questions, how about you do some critical thinking of your own, and tell me why your world can NOT end up the way I described. I can keep telling you and explaining myself why it does, but when I'm not listened to, it grows quite tiring, so, if you really want the answer, you can do the work, since you're not listening to me.

Quote:
then again, you apparently want to go back to the good ol' days where women stayed in the kitchen, the negroes weren't considered people, and being homosexual was a disease you could beat out of a kid or send them to a camp to. Is it true? I don't know, I'll expect some sort of angry retort that you will deny wanting society to look like that, but everything that I've heard from you in this and the other thread doesn't suggest anything different.
That's because you're not listening, you're only hearing what you want to hear, and not what I'm actually saying. If it's going to continue like this, you're not worth the time it takes to reply to you.

Quote:
... how does a legal union solve a damn thing? yes, in theory, if legal unions gave the same rights as marriage, sure, I used to support only legal unions, ect. But at the same time, people should have the right to get married to whomever they choose, and since we can't even get our original attempt to equalize everything right (not giving legal unions same rights as married couples), then we may as well go the full distance so we don't have to do the extra work (aka legalize gay marriage)
How about this? You can "marry" the same gender however you want, but it won't be legally recognized by the government unless it is a man and woman marrying, and for legally recognized same-gender unions, you can have "legal unions."
Just stop telling me equality means fairness, and human rights means government benefits. Please! Because they do not!!

Last edited by unownmew; 05-14-2012 at 09:26 PM.
unownmew is offline  
Old 05-14-2012, 10:20 PM   #32
Rangeet
Foot, meet mouth.
 
Rangeet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Beyond the Wall
Posts: 4,362
Send a message via MSN to Rangeet Send a message via Skype™ to Rangeet
Every religious civilisation thus far has failed.

PROVED: A religious civilisation will inevitably die.
__________________
Spoiler: show
Rangeet is offline  
Old 05-14-2012, 10:24 PM   #33
Tyranidos
beebooboobopbooboobop
 
Tyranidos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Krusty Krab
Posts: 3,800
Send a message via AIM to Tyranidos Send a message via MSN to Tyranidos
Tyranitar

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rangeetsuper View Post
Every religious civilisation thus far has failed.

PROVED: A religious civilisation will inevitably die.
I'm pretty sure every civilization in history has failed, you can't just say that about religious civilizations.
__________________
Tyranidos is offline  
Old 05-14-2012, 10:26 PM   #34
Rangeet
Foot, meet mouth.
 
Rangeet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Beyond the Wall
Posts: 4,362
Send a message via MSN to Rangeet Send a message via Skype™ to Rangeet
Exactly my point. Unownmew seems to be saying that gay marriage will take us on a slippery slope and we will lose morals because blah blah blah blah blah it happened in history. At least that's what I think he's saying because he seems to be a politician with his words.
__________________
Spoiler: show

Last edited by Rangeet; 05-14-2012 at 10:32 PM.
Rangeet is offline  
Old 05-15-2012, 05:10 AM   #35
Doppleganger
我が名は勇者王!
 
Doppleganger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Emina Isle
Posts: 14,198
Send a message via AIM to Doppleganger
Knock off the tangential discussion, there's another topic for it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerichi View Post

As for calling it something else. Well. I suppose that is a step in the right direction. What I really desire is equality under the law. If it makes you more comfortable to call it something else, I can live with it, I suppose. However, it still seems to put me in the light of a second-class citizen, undeservedly so. But, if it is the compromise we are presented, I can live with it.
This is why I suggest a "regime" or "attitude" change as the major underlying cause for the controversy. The term "marriage" isn't going to disappear and currently (and historically) has an immediate association with a male-female union. As long as "marriage" is commonly understood to exclude homosexuals, whether in law or in practice, it will always impose a perception of imbalance between couplings.

Granted, not all states are as legally progressive as California, although I'm optimistic even Texas will come around some day.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon87 View Post
That's the distinction I would make: status quo perceptions vs. definitions. You seem to be saying, "Perception of the status quo; ergo, definition." I follow you on the first leg of that adventure but not on the second. Certainly we say "gay marriage" because, just as you've correctly pointed out, the status quo in this society has been male-female marriage to the exclusion of all others for centuries. But I don't think you can then make the philosophical leap from "we perceive a marital status quo" to "we define the institution of marriage in terms of this status quo."
I took that route because we're talking about the legal definition of marriage, and status quo is what most terms are defined in when they're written into codes. Historically, legislators would observe a practice and then form the legal language to describe it. This is important because the legal definition reflects the status quo the law was written in, while terms that don't have definitions are subject to interpretation. The best example off the top of my head is using the 14th Amendment as a weapon against abortion because it extends only to "persons" who are "born" in United States territory. The subtext is "non-persons" do not have the rights of citizens, as do the un-born. In the future, we could see life-like androids and questions might be raised as to whether they as sentient beings can have US citizenship. In the past, slaves weren't considered "persons" but "property".

This is why I wanted the debate to first start off with definitions, because if not the issue becomes there are effectively three controversies under the "gay marriage" umbrella -

A. Is marriage only between a man and a woman?
B. If (A) is true, should civil unions/domestic partnerships be legalized/recognized?
C. If yes to (B), should same-sex couples be awarded the same legal benefits of married couples?

-but the rebuttals to each are subtly different and do not always cross apply.
__________________
あなたの勇気が切り開く未来
ふたりの想いが見つけだす希望
今 信じあえる
あきらめない 心かさね
永遠を抱きしめて
Doppleganger is offline  
Old 05-15-2012, 08:25 AM   #36
Muyotwo
Dominator of Bike Levels
 
Muyotwo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amras.MG View Post
Holy shit I was thinking about a way to say this when I saw the thread, and voila, Muyo has already said it perfectly for me already.
This is why we are best buds.
__________________
The Kim Il Sung of ASB.
Muyotwo is offline  
Old 05-15-2012, 02:35 PM   #37
Shuckle
Problematic Fave
 
Shuckle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
unownmew, if gay marriage is legalized, then the AIDS rate will go down with the premarital sex rate. Are you pro-STI?

(I typed up a really long post and then lost it but this is the best point I can remember)
__________________
Shuckle is offline  
Old 05-15-2012, 04:42 PM   #38
Emi
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
 
Emi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 12,068
Send a message via Skype™ to Emi
In truth, I am trying to stay as far away from the debate thread as possible, but, I do have to say some beliefs of mine that have practical meaning here:

1. Religion should have no say in politics, not should it have influence in the law making process.

2. Christians do NOT have a monopoly on morals or marriage.

3. Your religion is just as likely to be wrong as the next guys, we just don't know. So, don't parade your religion as a means to try and combat the marriage of two same sex members.

4. Same-sex marriages do no harm to society or too other people. It is just perceived that way because of the prevelance of Christians in our society.

5. A person should not be viewed as "inferior", or "deeply wrong(morally)" just because they are gay. Last time I remember, there were no gay serial killers were there?

6. There is no proof that marriage between a man and a woman is more "right" than same sex marriage EXCEPT IN BIASED RELIGIOUS TEXTS. THIS INCLUDES THE BIBLE!"

7. In the words of my friend Sam(a fellow Athiest), "It's hilarious how in the Bible that their is only like three or four things that say anything about gays, but easily five or six times more that say to love your neighor."

"Hating the sin, not the sinner" is one of the most stupid things I have ever seen. Because if you hate the sin, you hate the sinner as well.

8. We don't know that same-sex marriage is a "universal sin", or one that is traditionally disliked by all religions and cultures. Like murder is.

My points are done.
__________________
Emi is offline  
Old 05-15-2012, 04:58 PM   #39
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by blazeVA View Post
Last time I remember, there were no gay serial killers were there?
I'm putting it out there right now: first person to list off homosexual serial killers should lose their Debate forum posting privileges for 30 days for taking the low-hanging fruit the fruit that fucking fell off the tree branch and onto their lap. Don't do it.
Talon87 is offline  
Old 05-15-2012, 07:33 PM   #40
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by blazeVA View Post
In truth, I am trying to stay as far away from the debate thread as possible, but, I do have to say some beliefs of mine that have practical meaning here:
You're asking for it so here goes:

Quote:
1. Religion should have no say in politics, not should it have influence in the law making process.
Religion should have as much influence in politics as those who are influenced by it choose to let it regarding law-making or electing representatives. But Religion itself should never be the sole reason for enacting a particular piece of legislation. Morality, on the other hand, well, It's moral to not kill, and last I checked Murder was illegal.

Quote:
2. Christians do NOT have a monopoly on morals or marriage.
If our God were to appear and start throwing lightning and fire at the wicked people, I'm sure you would either cease to hold such a position, or die. Simply because you don't see something, does not mean it does not exist. If it did, we could all stick our heads in the sand and make all our problems go away. If God exists, then Christians do have the monopoly on morals and marriage. If He doesn't exist, then there's no such thing as real morality anyway, it's just a singular point of view that should bind only those who desire to be bound by it.

Quote:
3. Your religion is just as likely to be wrong as the next guys, we just don't know. So, don't parade your religion as a means to try and combat the marriage of two same sex members.
Except, you can't discount those people who know and have seen proof of their religion. They DO know, whereas you do not. And if they have proof, then there's no question which religion is wrong and which is right. But really, this has little to do with the topic on hand, since, practicing Muslims and Jews also disagree with Same-sex marriage. Can I parade their religions around instead?

Quote:
4. Same-sex marriages do no harm to society or too other people. It is just perceived that way because of the prevelance of Christians in our society.
Until you can prove conclusively beyond any doubt that that is an invariable case, you have no right to be saying it.

Quote:
5. A person should not be viewed as "inferior", or "deeply wrong(morally)" just because they are gay. Last time I remember, there were no gay serial killers were there?
No one is saying a gay person is inferior, and neither are they being treated inferior according to the law. They have all the same real human rights as straight people have. And straight people do not have the legal right to marry who they love, they only have the legal right to select a person of the opposite gender to marry. Same as gays. Love was never part of the legal equation.

Quote:
6. There is no proof that marriage between a man and a woman is more "right" than same sex marriage EXCEPT IN BIASED RELIGIOUS TEXTS. THIS INCLUDES THE BIBLE!"
There is no proof that same-sex marriage is equally right with marriage between a man and a woman. EXCEPT IN BIASED NONRELIGIOUS TEXTS AND HUMAN OPINION, THIS INCLUDES YOUR STATISTICAL "SCIENTIFIC" STUDIES!
See two can play at that game, so I'd suggest you not start it.

Quote:
7. "Hating the sin, not the sinner" is one of the most stupid things I have ever seen. Because if you hate the sin, you hate the sinner as well.
That's only because you lack the vision to see how to do so. Become a parent, and then you'll understand how it is possible. I don't claim to be able to perform this perfectly either.

Quote:
8. We don't know that same-sex marriage is a "universal sin", or one that is traditionally disliked by all religions and cultures. Like murder is.
I propose to you that all religions and cultures have similar beliefs because they all stemmed from the same True Religion that God taught to Adam and Eve. But, no one is saying that same-sex marriage is a universal sin, they're only saying it's a very bad idea to legally recognize it.

Last edited by unownmew; 05-15-2012 at 07:44 PM.
unownmew is offline  
Old 05-15-2012, 09:26 PM   #41
Muyotwo
Dominator of Bike Levels
 
Muyotwo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by blazeVA View Post
5. A person should not be viewed as "inferior", or "deeply wrong(morally)" just because they are gay. Last time I remember, there were no gay serial killers were there?
Not highlighting this to point out that there are in fact numerous gay serial killers (including two of America's top three most famous) but to discuss some things I found interesting while watching a documentary on Gacy the other night. So much of his psychology seemed to be based on his loathing of his own homosexual urges and in interviews he fiercely denied being homosexual. I think Gacy in particular (probably not Dahmer, who was a different kind of messed up) would probably not have become a serial killer if being a homosexual wasn't so stigmatized back then, since unlike most of the serial killers you imagine he was reportedly charming and pleasant to be around, was very successful in his work and was apparently a wonderful family man- he just couldn't deal with his homosexual urges and ended up killing people rather than leave any gay partner of his alive. I could easily be wrong and he might have ended up killing people anyway, but in this case in particular it seems that unownmew-style homophobia and gay shaming probably contributed to the slaughter of dozens of innocent men.

Sorry for the topic derailment, but I thought it was interesting to think about.
Muyotwo is offline  
Old 05-16-2012, 06:12 AM   #42
Shuckle
Problematic Fave
 
Shuckle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
Quote:
Originally Posted by blazeVA View Post
4. Same-sex marriages do no harm to society or too other people. It is just perceived that way because of the prevelance of Christians in our society.
And you think we're bad? American culture is extremely tolerant about gay coupling as opposed to Muslim societies. There's an endless battle about us condemning them for their Mozz-like practices (children are routinely brought to the wealthy and subsequently defiled) and them condemning us for allowing intercourse between consenting adults.

Quote:
6. There is no proof that marriage between a man and a woman is more "right" than same sex marriage EXCEPT IN BIASED RELIGIOUS TEXTS. THIS INCLUDES THE BIBLE!"
Biology says that gay sex does not produce children in either partner. Your point is irrelevant. (Devil's advocate here, but i think you probably hit Ignore on unownmew's posts so i'll restate his hammered-in point). Honestly, this is not a point you'll win so don't even bring it up.

Quote:
7. In the words of my friend Sam(a fellow Athiest), "It's hilarious how in the Bible that their is only like three or four things that say anything about gays, but easily five or six times more that say to love your neighor."
I do believe I said something to this effect back in the Christianity thread, but there are a lot of incorrect, anti-gay translations of the Bible that are really warnings against pedophilia and ritual gay sex in pagan temples.

Quote:
"Hating the sin, not the sinner" is one of the most stupid things I have ever seen. Because if you hate the sin, you hate the sinner as well.
Let me try.

The point of the quote you so brilliantly denied is actually one of the core tenets of Christianity. You seem to be unable to grasp this, so I will provide analogical aids.

If your best friend is a terrific douche one day, does something stupid, but feels ashamed that it happened and works actively to prevent it happening again, should you hate him? Will you continually and always define him by the mistakes that he makes, the sins that he commits, and the immoral actions he has done? Of course not. This is just a tiny fraction of all that the quote represents. To love the sinner and to hate the sin are two entirely different concepts that have been blended together and often confused due to their linguistic similarity.

Quote:
8. We don't know that same-sex marriage is a "universal sin", or one that is traditionally disliked by all religions and cultures. Like murder is.
Well...let's just say that it is legal to hunt gay people in some countries and leave it at that.

Meh, can't say any more. I'm hungry and my word quota for this post is almost full. In fact, the
__________________
Shuckle is offline  
Old 05-16-2012, 06:14 AM   #43
Rangeet
Foot, meet mouth.
 
Rangeet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Beyond the Wall
Posts: 4,362
Send a message via MSN to Rangeet Send a message via Skype™ to Rangeet
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shuckle View Post
Biology says that gay sex does not produce children in either partner. Your point is irrelevant. (Devil's advocate here, but i think you probably hit Ignore on unownmew's posts so i'll restate his hammered-in point). Honestly, this is not a point you'll win so don't even bring it up.
So sterile people can't marry? Got it, that's totally fair.

Also, the word quota is far, far, FAR more than that.
__________________
Spoiler: show
Rangeet is offline  
Old 05-16-2012, 07:08 AM   #44
Doppleganger
我が名は勇者王!
 
Doppleganger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Emina Isle
Posts: 14,198
Send a message via AIM to Doppleganger
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rangeetsuper View Post
So sterile people can't marry?
Strawman.

Shuckle was talking about sex and didn't mention marriage at all, because blaze was implying that marriage has no inherent sex bias. Seeing as marriage is a human institution that evolved out of mating pairs, that inference is both wrong and irrelevant.

I'm going to stop here, but as a warning, everyone needs to agree on the same definition of marriage. I can't stress this enough. If we use the definition I proposed earlier, Rangeet has no reason to post, because the question proposed answers itself. blaze doesn't make a wild claim.

Using a definition, any mutually agreed upon definition doesn't lock out argumentation, and instead focuses the debate and makes it easier to follow. We're moving away from that. Again.
__________________
あなたの勇気が切り開く未来
ふたりの想いが見つけだす希望
今 信じあえる
あきらめない 心かさね
永遠を抱きしめて
Doppleganger is offline  
Old 05-16-2012, 07:11 AM   #45
Rangeet
Foot, meet mouth.
 
Rangeet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Beyond the Wall
Posts: 4,362
Send a message via MSN to Rangeet Send a message via Skype™ to Rangeet
But we're talking about gay marriage and he was using it as an excuse to NOT let gay people marry. (Incidentally, it grates on my nerves when people use "gay" as a noun.)
__________________
Spoiler: show
Rangeet is offline  
Old 05-16-2012, 07:12 AM   #46
PikaGod
Marsh Badge
 
PikaGod's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
Now, marrying a person you love is the ideal, but, love can be found for anyone, regardless. There's no such thing as a "soulmate." Real Love is work and a conscious choice, not a mix of chemicals that make you feel good. Even a Heterosexual can find it in themselves, if they choose, to love another of the same gender, and the same goes for homosexuals- finding it in themselves to love a member of the opposite gender. Orientation is only what initially draws a person. It is the conscious choice of the person that determines whether they will be exclusive to their own gender or exclusive to the opposite.
No. No. No. No. No! That is not how being hetero/bi/gay/a/pansexual works, yes there are the small minority that do have the ability to actually choose their orientation, I'm not going to deny that. However, excusing the small minority, you can't just decide what your orientation is. And don't try and pull the 'oh with god's love you can turn heterosexual blah blah blah' or 'if you really really really try you can blahdy blahdy blah' because if that were true there would be very little non hetero people and a fuckton less people commiting suicide each year.

The following is just a little rant, it is not that necessary to read.
Spoiler: show

Moving on from that point, I get very annoyed when people refer to the sex as gay sex. With the exception of scissoring, everything is also done by heterosexual people, ergo its sex. And it doesn't matter what the gender combo is, it is just sex. It's anal, or cunniligus, or a blowjob, not gay sex. I eat breakfast, not gay eat breakfast. I walk to uni, not gay walk to uni. So please, don't refer to it as gay sex. It is a major pet peeve of mine.


Also everything Jeri said.
__________________
Fizzy Bubbles: Karmas
PikaGod is offline  
Old 05-16-2012, 03:09 PM   #47
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by PikaGod View Post
No. No. No. No. No! That is not how being hetero/bi/gay/a/pansexual works, yes there are the small minority that do have the ability to actually choose their orientation, I'm not going to deny that. However, excusing the small minority, you can't just decide what your orientation is. And don't try and pull the 'oh with god's love you can turn heterosexual blah blah blah' or 'if you really really really try you can blahdy blahdy blah' because if that were true there would be very little non hetero people and a fuckton less people commiting suicide each year.
You seem to have misread something. Did I say anything about changing orientation? No, I did not. I was talking about Love, Real Love, not sexual attraction. Which IS something a person has control over. Ask any psychologist, feelings CAN be controlled.
unownmew is offline  
Old 05-16-2012, 04:03 PM   #48
Jerichi
プラスチック♡ラブ
 
Jerichi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: 蒸気の波の中
Posts: 14,766
>I eat breakfast, not gay eat breakfast.

I don't know what you're talking about; my breakfasts are pretty gay.

*shot x100*

To stay on topic, the other half of the Vlogbrothers, John Green, counters most of unownmew's points:

BORKED

Boy I love it when I don't have to do the work.
__________________


私のことを消して本気で愛さないで 恋なんてただのゲーム 楽しめばそれでいい
閉ざした心を飾る 派手なドレスも靴も 孤独の友達

asbwffb

[jerichi]

Last edited by Jerichi; 05-16-2012 at 04:31 PM.
Jerichi is offline  
Old 05-16-2012, 05:04 PM   #49
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Ah, but Jerichi, you still have to defend it. You can't just unload a slew of debate points and then expect them to stick without defending their merit.

King Solomon's marriage habits were most certainly untraditional- compared to what all the other Israelites practiced as tradition at the time, so it's pointless to use such an example.

The problem with legalizing same-sex marriage, is, you in turn mess up the legal definitions of Male and Female and make them the exact same entity, opening up the potential legal basis to rule in favor of a slew of crazy lawsuits like whether or not a man can force Hooter's to hire him as a Hooter's Girl, where they specifically hire only females for that position- for a reason.

Furthermore, if we're going to talk about legal injustice and discrimination,same-sex marriage opens up a legal pathway to Sue-FORCE churches to accept and perform same-sex marriages against their beliefs and conscience, under the guise of "preventing discrimination" or "ensuring 'equal' 'rights.'"

Frankly the only meaningful argument I heard there, was regarding Hermaphrodites. Whom I think have a MUCH MUCH greater claim to injustice than a gay ever could. As for what to do about it, I have no idea- save, allowing them the ability to pick their gender and marry from the opposite.



Anyway, Dopple wants us to agree on a definition of marriage. Unfortunately, I think that's what the whole problem is here: neither side wants to accept the other's definitions. Those in favor of keeping the status quo, want to keep the definition as what it's meant legally since early times, while the proponents want to radically change the definition to fit their own, ideas, which really are quite divergent from societal norms.
In order words, they want to pervert or adulterate what is considered "fact" to suit their needs.

Last edited by unownmew; 05-16-2012 at 05:20 PM.
unownmew is offline  
Old 05-16-2012, 05:32 PM   #50
Selena
Aroma Lady
 
Selena's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
Furthermore, if we're going to talk about legal injustice and discrimination,same-sex marriage opens up a legal pathway to Sue-FORCE churches to accept and perform same-sex marriages against their beliefs and conscience, under the guise of "preventing discrimination" or "ensuring 'equal' 'rights.'"
Sad as this may be (or not depending on your point of view), coming from a country where gay marriage is both legal and not controversial (anti gay marriage lobbies don't even have to think about it) this point stands true. With gay rights being legally equal to every other person's, people now start to demand that same attitude from the church.

Note that I do agree that gay's should have equal rights I also believe that the church should have the right to refuse gay marriage in front of God, even if it's pretty stupid as people just leave the church altogether with that attitude. (I'm an agnostian btw)
__________________
Trainer level 3: 53 KO \\ 187 TP \\ 37.5 SP
21 win 29 loss 1 draw (17/21/1 Without DQ)

B- grade ref.
Quote:
Originally Posted by empoleon dynamite View Post
Shouldn’t the Hoff be doing something if he’s still around? I have strict rules about leaving the pool, and I’m sure vanishing the pool out of existence breaks those rules in some way :P
Selena is offline  
Closed Thread

Lower Navigation
Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > Debate


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

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:21 AM.


Design By: Miner Skinz.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.