Homosexual Marriage

[lord_carbo]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

I Am Sickened By Homsexuals. It Is So ****ing Disgusting. Homosexuality Should Be A Crime And Everyone Who Is Homosexual Is Committing A Sin Against God And It's Really Disgusting. ******s

[ToshX]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

I Am Sickened By Homsexuals. It Is So ****ing Disgusting. Homosexuality Should Be A Crime And Everyone Who Is Homosexual Is Committing A Sin Against God And It's Really Disgusting. ******s

A problem I see is a lot of people will say that in complete seriousness.

[Tibs]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

omgitsLORDCARBO: If there is no mutual ideology in debate, then you cannot "truly" debate. For example, in drug debates, both parties agree that there should be little societal damage or agree in liberty, yet their methods of doing are different. Arguments that differ in ideology are a matter of trying to change people's morals and fundamental ideas.
omgitsLORDCARBO: Common sense tells us murder is bad, but is it? E.g. if I thought murder was good, you cannot really debate with me this. You'd need to convince me, and in a debating sense you'd be no better than me, forcing beliefs down my throat and vice-versa. We are all guilty of this same action in that sense.
omgitsLORDCARBO: Priority comes before ideology, but priority is still a matter of ideology. Priority... this principle is actually the key part of most foreign affairs, a good example being Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
omgitsLORDCARBO: Homosexual marriage is not a matter of method, it is a matter of ideology. One party supports liberty, the other does not. It is impossible to debate without rhetoric. And it is stupid to debate once somebody is clear on their ideology and you've presented your basic moral reasons why it's wrong.
omgitsLORDCARBO: We should all be banned.
omgitsLORDCARBO: fjasdlkjfasld;fja;lsj done

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

They believe in a religion that says it is wrong, so they believe it is wrong. That is their right as a free thinking human: to believe whatever they want.

True, but acting on any belief in a way that infringes on the rights of others is immoral.

It only becomes problematic when they assume that their conviction (even in an absence of evidence) is enough to convince someone of the correctness of their position, or when religious groups are allowed to more directly influence the government than non-religious groups.

No, it becomes problematic as soon as they take any action that results in a violation of the rights of others, directly or indirectly.

Democracy is the tyrrany of the majority, and anyone wanting to live in a democracy is constrained by the fact that there will be times where they feel their minority view is correct, and the majority view is incorrect, but you live in a democracy, you live with it, or you leave.

Bull. F u c k ing. S h i t.

Ever hear of a thing called a constitution? Or how about the judicial system? These are two things which are supposed to counteract that tyranny you seem to think is a-ok. The first one happens to be the sole legitimate foundation for our government, the second is part of a system which is designed to keep other social functions in check and make sure the political aspect of society which pertains directly to human rights retains a balance.

I think this system is called a system of checks and balances, BUT I'M NOT SURE.

If you made a change that the majority disapproved of, you wouldn't be in a democracy anymore, even if the change is one that you feel is encouraging freedom.

So what? F u c k democracy. Majoritarianism can only go so far before a democracy votes away all liberty and even democratic principles. Why not prevent this? Because of an ideal based on a meritless vision?

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

omgitsLORDCARBO: Homosexual marriage is not a matter of method, it is a matter of ideology. One party supports liberty, the other does not.

Neither Democrats nor Republicans particularly support Liberty, neither is gay marriage a flatly partisan issue.

It is impossible to debate without rhetoric.

No it isn't.

And it is stupid to debate once somebody is clear on their ideology and you've presented your basic moral reasons why it's wrong.

No it isn't. It is possible to change people's fundamental beliefs, It's just difficult. Past basic moral reasons there are heavier considerations, and given enough contextual debate it is possible to show to a person that what they once considered a sound moral reason for something is actually unsound.

Based on the premises they are willing to accept, of course. However, if you're not willing to accept any premises even for the sake of argument you shouldn't be arguing, but your opinion is also worthless because you refuse to test it.

[devonin]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

Ever hear of a thing called a constitution? Or how about the judicial system? These are two things which are supposed to counteract that tyranny you seem to think is a-ok.

I'm pretty sure those institutions were voted into existence, every change that was made to them was voted into existance, and whenever a protest about them goes high enough to hit the US Supreme Court, hey guess what, they get voted on. In all of those cases, the majority vote wins. If you feel your rights are being infringed, and the Supreme Court votes and rules that they aren't, hey look, tyrrany of the majority!

So what? F u c k democracy

You live in one, people vote for things, the majority vote (generally) determines the course of events. That's how voting in a democracy works.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

I'm pretty sure those institutions were voted into existence, every change that was made to them was voted into existance, and whenever a protest about them goes high enough to hit the US Supreme Court, hey guess what, they get voted on. In all of those cases, the majority vote wins. If you feel your rights are being infringed, and the Supreme Court votes and rules that they aren't, hey look, tyrrany of the majority!

It isn't the entire populace voting. Stop equivocating.

You live in one, people vote for things, the majority vote (generally) determines the course of events. That's how voting in a democracy works.

Less than half the populace generally votes, most issues are decided on by representatives or other small groups. To be honest I don't care who it is making the decisions, I care about whether or not the decisions are wrong. Any decision infringing upon constitutional rights is wrong.

I KNOW HOW A DEMOCRACY WORKS. THE ISSUE IS THAT I SOMETIMES DON'T LIKE WHAT IT DOES.

[devonin]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

So...because you are a representative democracy in which the majority winning candidate represents their area in majority winning votes in the house and senate, you can still tell me I'm equivocating when the people you have majority elected to represent you have a majority vote to determine issues, and I put forward the claim that therefore majority voting is occuring?

Less than half the populace generally votes

So uh...the -majority- decision is to stand aside and let minorities do the decision making....

Just because you don't -like- how representative democracy works doesn't mean that isn't how it works, it just means that you don't like how it works.

In theory, if the institution whose -job- it is to determine when your rights are being infringed as dictated in the documents you love so much conclude that they are not being infringed, you (as I said before you so vehemantly disagreed to the extent of dodging filters to swear) rather have to either uphold the way your government works by acquiescing, leave, or just start insisting that the entire government has failed (which is probably what you'd do)

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

So...because you are a representative democracy in which the majority winning candidate represents their area in majority winning votes in the house and senate, you can still tell me I'm equivocating when the people you have majority elected to represent you have a majority vote to determine issues, and I put forward the claim that therefore majority voting is occuring?

Yes.

So uh...the -majority- decision is to stand aside and let minorities do the decision making....

Not necessarily. It depends on what proportional size of each group of the total populace is represented by those who actually do vote. The religious right, for instance, votes in disproportionately greater number relatively to other groups, while women vote in disproportionately lower number.

Just because you don't -like- how representative democracy works doesn't mean that isn't how it works, it just means that you don't like how it works.

Yes, congratulations, you're almost on the same page as me now.

In theory, if the institution whose -job- it is to determine when your rights are being infringed as dictated in the documents you love so much conclude that they are not being infringed, you rather have to either uphold the way your government works by acquiescing, leave, or just start insisting that the entire government has failed (which is probably what you'd do)

Not the entire government.

[-paexaea-]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

Penis + Penis = No reproducing.

stfu.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

Testing to see if my brain can actually work a certain way...

Please state the next required part of the proof.

(P & P) -> S
(Rx) [□(P & VA)x] -> Sx
(P & P) -> (S & ~R)

P=Maleness VA=Femaleness R=Reproduction S=Sex

What does S & ~R imply? It sure as hell doesn't imply immorality.

[Master_of_the_Faster]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

To all those people who think gay marriage is wrong:
1. You have no reasonable proof against gay marriages with religion because bibles and any other religion are Straight up assumptions that May or May not be true. You can't argue hypotheticals to take away one's life, liberty, or property. If you truely were righteous, you would honor the fact that you may be persecuting someone with no real cause.
2. Why do people think that population will die out or any of those crazy thoughts? Most of us today were born from heterosexuals weren't we? I'm sure that homosexuals weren't created when we just started debating such a topic of homosexual marriage.
3. What makes it any more right to be a guy and a girl than a guy and a guy or a girl and a girl? Both would love each other in every situation if they commit to each other. The only physical difference known to society is population. Even then, not every guy and girl decides to have a sexual relationship when married and some men and women don't have children no matter how much they try. If you are straight, think about what type of person you would marry if you were the opposite sex. You would be marrying the exact sex that you are now and if you didn't then you would be a homosexual. Some people argue that if homosexuals can get married, animals (not humans) can get married to humans as well. That argument shouldn't work because if you think about it, a marriage should be something that beings can make a commitment to. A cat can't commit because either they aren't smart enough to talk like humans or a cat's language is different from that of a human being and we don't comprehend. However, I do honor that such an animal could one day act like a human and make a commitment which is why I refer to the idea of a marriage being with beings that can show that they want to commit to each other instead of just humans. As for polygamy, I value that people can make their own choices without others getting in their business or depriving their rights for no justified cause. It's just usual for two people to be married because of "normal" standards.

[Orch_Dork]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

I really don't like gay people. I cringe with the thought of them. Its DESCUSTING, and WRONG.

p.s. I'm not a homophobe. I just don't like gays.

[psychopete]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

I really don't like gay people. I cringe with the thought of them. Its DESCUSTING, and WRONG.

p.s. I'm not a homophobe. I just don't like gays.

1) Learn to spell.
2) You're homophobic if you don't like gays.
3) Tell me, why the hell are we so disgusting and wrong? DO NOT use biblical reasons.

[Orch_Dork]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

1) Learn to spell.
2) You're homophobic if you don't like gays.
3) Tell me, why the hell are we so disgusting and wrong? DO NOT use biblical reasons.

1) I know I cant spell worth crap
2)not really
3)if two people of the the same sex were suposed to have sex, they could have babys togeather. (no biblical reasons are neaded)