Homosexual Marriage

[devonin]

The greatest "wrong" I can see with homosexual marriage is the fact that the two can't have children together.

As this is often a quoted reason against allowing gay marriage in the United States, a gay rights lobby group was proposing a law that would state that any married couple that did not produce a child within 5 years be forcibly divorced by the government.

[jewpinthethird]

Originally Posted by devonin

As this is often a quoted reason against allowing gay marriage in the United States, a gay rights lobby group was proposing a law that would state that any married couple that did not produce a child within 5 years be forcibly divorced by the government.

Uh. Devonin. The only reason people get married is to have children. Jeez. This elementary knowledge here. Everyone knows there's no such thing as love.

[Chrissi]

Originally Posted by Palm20Trees

I aggre that only 1 gender should be able to be married. Its gross other wise.

Which gender, male or female?

Also, gg. You're from Canada. You must be disgusted with your country, what with the homosexuals and their gay marriage running all over the place.

[psychopete]

Originally Posted by Palm20Trees

I aggre that only 1 gender should be able to be married. Its gross other wise. Just think about it!

I will also ALWAYS be against it! FOREVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Really, what is there to think about?

And I'll say to you what I said to the other one: elaborate, dammit.

[Coca Cola]

Same Sex Mating Is Against The Machine

I Oppose

[x6tence]

my opinion on homosexual marriage: NO

[devonin]

Support your opinion with reasons and evidence as per the rules of the forum.

[ToshX]

Originally Posted by devonin

Support your opinion with reasons and evidence as per the rules of the forum.

The thing is, there is no real reason outside of religion and not being able to make kids. I think the law should NEVER do anything based on religion, and I also think that, until we have a PROBLEM or the population is actually DECREASING rather than rapidly increasing, I also think this argument also will not work.

So what will to support this argument? Absolutely nothing.

The majority of the public is not always right.

Remember when black people were slaves, and in general treated like garbage in general back then when they really didn't deserve ANYTHING(as in they didn't deserve to be treated that poorly) they were getting at all? Know how it just continued on because the majority thought it was okay? I'd think instances like those would have made people notice that the majority is not always in favor.

And hey, what if someone's still racist towards black people? Well, there are MANY other instances in history where stuff like this has happened in which a person could agree to. I think it is impossible for someone to agree that ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING should be as it was thousands of years ago. That being said, why not make the change now, even if the majority will disagree, for the help of a better world in the long run?

Oh, and devonin, I'm not saying this to you, I'm saying this to everyone. More towards the people who disagree with homosexual marriage, though.

EDIT: I worded something poorly in my 4th "paragraph"(2nd if you don't count the two sentences between). Sorry about the confusion that could've caused. I fixed it now though.

[devonin]

Oh, and devonin, I'm not saying this to you, I'm saying this to everyone. More towards the people who disagree with homosexual marriage, though.

I didn't think you were saying it to me, since I didn't actually state an opinion just now, I asked someone else to provide their reasons and evidence.

Though to address what you said: How do you know whether x6tence has reasons or evidence yet, since they haven't actually stated some?

I appreciate that you have obviously come up against a lot of people who are against gay marriage on religious grounds, but here's the thing: They aren't wrong.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[ToshX]

I'm sorry, I'm noticing a lot of typos and stuff in my post that really turn my post in the opposite direction. It was worded pretty poorly. Reread it and it'll send off a different message.

I appreciate that you have obviously come up against a lot of people who are against gay marriage on religious grounds, but here's the thing: They aren't wrong.

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.

I'd like to say I agree with you here, but I'd rather do things by known facts. I hate to say it, but no religion is a known fact. Even atheism is not a fact, nor is it any closer than anyone else's opinions on it for all we know. What I'm saying is until we PROVE a religion to be real, one in which says homosexual marriage is wrong, I think there should be no problem with it.

I just really don't like to think things should be based off of assumptions of what COULD be there. I just don't think it's a valid argument.

Originally Posted by devonin

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.

I'm sorry, I missed this part when I posted. But yeah, I agree if there is OTHER EVIDENCE against it besides religion(well, which is "valid" evidence), then it becomes more of a reasonable opinion.

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.

Then maybe we should not be a democracy if it is limiting the amount of freedom we have. But that's an entirely different argument.

[lord_carbo]

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]

Originally Posted by lord_carbo

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]

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]

Originally Posted by devonin

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]

Originally Posted by -Tibs-

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]

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!

Originally Posted by kilroy_x

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]

Originally Posted by devonin

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]

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]

Originally Posted by devonin

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-]

Penis + Penis = No reproducing.

stfu.