Originally posted by Slash_KMC
Wait, did you not read what I wrote? There is a great amount of people that would like to have a same sex marriage to gain the same rights as people in a heterosexual marriage. There is no reason why it shouldn't be allowed.
So because two males or two females can't reproduce, they aren't allowed to get married? How is this logical in any way?
The government defined marriage as such because when they defined it people were terrified to admit being homosexual and religion trumped logic. People accepting homosexuals in society is known as progress. Same sex marriage is progress.
And by the way, if the government considers the concept of marriage as an institution between a man and a woman, it has nothing to do with "religion", and therefore refutes your emotional rationalization.
Originally posted by truejedi
In my opinion, the government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage. Its a religious institution. If gays can find a church that will marry them, go for it. The government has nothing to do with it.Same goes for incest. There is no argument supporting homosexual marriage that doesn't ALSO support incestual marriage. If they are from the lower class, well, i'm not a person who holds someone's economic situation against them.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Oh wonderful, so your argument here is that because many people want it, it should be allowed. I'll counter by saying more than 50% of Americans are [b]still opposed to it, and therefore it shouldn't be allowed.[/b]
But they are opposed to it for illogical reasons. This is the reason why in some places it is not allowed. Here is a list of all the places that allow same sex marriage: List.
All these countries and states allow it, so why are some people still opposed to it. Now as you're obviously one of those people, I'd like to repeat myself:
"Now if you know a logical reason against it, give it or admit you have none."
Since one of the reasons for marriage is reproduction, this is a good reason. It's a hell of a lot better than "WHY NOT!!"
That's not a valid reason. Marriage doesn't equal having children. Although gay people can actually have children through means of adoption. You keep repeating the why not (as an obvious desperation attempt), but you're clearly missing the point. It is legal in most countries and states, so can you really deny gay people their happiness in some places without having a logical reason for it.
It's like the big kids in the playground who tell smaller kids they can't play there.
See, this is as bad of an emotional rationalization as Veneficus' posts. You don't agree with what the government is doing so you need to tell yourself something to make yourself feel better. You're not the government's psychologist, nor do you know their reasons. And while you call it progress, I don't. So again, you have not provided a [b]SINGLE argument for same sex marriages other than "why not", and "oh the government is just being irrational!"[/B]
It's not the government. It's some local governments mostly in the least progressive places. Deal with it, change for the better is progress. You have not provided one argument at all. It's not being accepted by some governments because the majority opposes it, and most of this majority consists of religious conservatists.
Originally posted by Slash_KMC
But they are opposed to it for illogical reasons. This is the reason why in some places it is not allowed. Here is a list of all the places that allow same sex marriage: List.
All these countries and states allow it, so why are some people still opposed to it. Now as you're obviously one of those people, I'd like to repeat myself:
That's not a valid reason. Marriage doesn't equal having children. Although gay people can actually have children through means of adoption. You keep repeating the why not (as an obvious desperation attempt), but you're clearly missing the point. It is legal in most countries and states, so can you really deny gay people their happiness in some places without having a logical reason for it.
It's like the big kids in the playground who tell smaller kids they can't play there.
It's not the government. It's some local governments mostly in the least progressive places. Deal with it, change for the better is progress. You have not provided one argument at all. It's not being accepted by some governments because the majority opposes it, and most of this majority consists of religious conservatists. [/B]
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington Oh wonderful, so your argument here is that because many people want it, it should be allowed. I'll counter by saying more than 50% of Americans are still opposed to it, and therefore it shouldn't be allowed.
Minority rights are meaningless then? It is simply a matter of ensuring that same-sex couples receive the same rights as heterosexual couples. Gay marriage would increase the wellbeing of people overall, because it would grant the same rights to everyone.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefingtonSince one of the reasons for marriage is reproduction, this is a good reason. It's a hell of a lot better than "WHY NOT!!"
Since when is marriage for reproduction? What about people who get married but don't want to have any kids? What if they just get married for legal reasons?
Originally posted by Dr McBeefingtonSee, this is as bad of an emotional rationalization as Veneficus' posts.
The only one getting emotional here, is you.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefingtonYou don't agree with what the government is doing so you need to tell yourself something to make yourself feel better. You're not the government's psychologist, nor do you know their reasons. And while you call it progress, I don't. So again, you have not provided a SINGLE argument for same sex marriages other than "why not", and "oh the government is just being irrational!"[/i]
This is an argument about the validity of the government's current stance. Claiming that because the government ruled x, therefore x must be right, is a horrible argument.
I can replace x with anything using that argument.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefingtonAnd by the way, if the government considers the concept of marriage as an institution between a man and a woman, it has nothing to do with "religion", and therefore refutes your emotional rationalization.
Where do you think the hostility to gay marriage comes from? Where do you think it originates from? What element of our society is most hostile to gay marriage?
And should that element of our society have any influence on what the government defines as marriage?
Originally posted by Lucius
Minority rights are meaningless then? It is simply a matter of ensuring that same-sex couples receive the same rights as heterosexual couples. Gay marriage would increase the wellbeing of people overall, because it would grant the same rights to everyone.
Since when is marriage for reproduction? What about people who get married but don't want to have any kids? What if they just get married for legal reasons?
The only one getting emotional here, is you.
This is an argument about the validity of the government's current stance. Claiming that because the government ruled x, therefore x must be right, is a horrible argument.I can replace x with anything using that argument.
Where do you think the hostility to gay marriage comes from? Where do you think it originates from? What element of our society is most hostile to gay marriage?
And should that element of our society have any influence on what the government defines as marriage? [/B]I think in certain aspects such as marriage, there should be influence. That's where you and I disagree, obviously.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
You keep saying they are opposed to it for illogical reasons, but you can't seem to provide these reasons. Instead you provide me of places that allow same sex marriages. Thanks but that doesn't do anything for me.
First you asked me to provide arguments for same sex marriage. But now you're even asking me to provide the reasons that people against same sex marriage are giving. It's like I'm talking to myself. You also are trying to make it appear that you already asked me to provide the illogical reasons of being against same sex marriage while you haven't asked me once. But most importantly:
I'll keep repeating myself as you seem to blatantly ignore this:
"Now if you know a logical reason against it, give it or admit you have none."
It's not "some", it's "most", at least in America. So now you've upgrade your argument from "why not", to an appeal to the majority, or at least what you perceive to be a majority. Congratulations Slash, back to the drawing board.
Yes, thanks for saying "at least in America". America is not the only place in the world where people get married.
Means of adoption isn't procreation or "having" children unless you want to get into semantics. The only desperate attempts here have been made by you as you haven't even come close to a logical argument. And again, you top it off with "many countries do it so why don't we!" No offense Slash but this is probably the worst argument I've seen from you and we've known each other for years. And let me use your logic. It is illegal in our country and yet happiness still exists here, especially by some homosexual couples who are fine with a domestic partnership, so there must not be a logical reason to allow it.
Again, you haven't made ANY attempt to justify not letting same sex couples get married. Maybe if I repeat it again you'll actually answer instead of trying to get away without providing any kind of argument.
"Now if you know a logical reason against it, give it or admit you have none."
Laws can obviously be changed. A lot of homosexual couples find happiness in marriage. But are the homosexual couples who live in an area where you can't marry the same sex are just screwed according to you?
No it's not. Next thing you're going to do is probably compare slavery to the illegalities of same sex marriages. When that time comes, we can go no further because I can't possibly debate with someone who equates the two.
Debating with someone who doesn't provide any kind of argument is even more difficult.
Why are you telling me to deal with it when I live in a country that whose government still shares my sentiments? If anything, I should tell YOU to deal with it because you're not getting what you want. And lastly, you throw out an absurd assertion which again is an emotional rationalization because you don't have an argument. I'll give you a hint champ. Obama is a liberal Democrat, and both houses consist of liberal democrats as the majority. Also, the Supreme Court is pretty even today, as opposed to the 60s-early 90s and the "Warren Commission", when it was hardcore liberal. So your assertion of "majority consists of religious conservatives" is nonsense.
I'm not getting what I want? For someone who throws the words emotional rationalization around so much you sure are getting emotional.
I just don't get why people are opposed to it, and you're not helping... at all.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
If minority rights were meaningless as you're pretending that I asserted, there would be no domestic partnerships either. Try to stay on topic here. And explain to be how equal rights for something the majority of a country has a specific definition for, would increase the wellbeing of people overall? You've really got to put a cap on this utilitarianism nonsense.
This is saying that domestic partnerships = marriage, which they obviously don't
To be fair, I don't actually think the government should use the term marriage at all and instead simply make everyone legally domestic partners. What the individual couples want to call it is their own business.
That said, defining marriage as a legal union between two consenting adults increases overall wellbeing because it provides the same rights for everyone regardless of sexual orientation. Just because such a definition would offend a select group of intolerant people, is not a good enough reason to oppose gay marriage. We might as well oppose pornography too, or just about anything that offends people.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington I never said it was exclusively for reproduction, it is one of the main reason for it and more couples marry for children than those who don't.
Unless you claim procreation as a key aspect of defining marriage, then this point is meaningless.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington Wonderful rebuttal. I'm sure you can back this up with....Oh wait, nevermind. Your emotional outburst are evident when there is a discussion about religion and same sex marriages. But good try repeating what I said back to me.
I have exercised incredible amounts of self-control in forcing myself to remember that you and I view the world from very, very different paradigms.
You simply continue to mock me.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington Actually, it's a great argument in the scope of a government argument. If a government ruled X because of a certain component (such as marriage being between a man and a woman), then it's rational and legal to deny it. Not that that's the only reason but it was AN argument, not THE argument.
But what defines marriage as "between a man and a woman?" Who decides that? The majority? What else should the educated and rational majority decide?
And an appeal to tradition is not rational response.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington Oh, please educate me on the alleged distinctions. This should be good.
This doesn't answer my question (which had an obvious answer.)
Religion is one of the primary sources for opposition to same-sex marriage, something I think would be obvious.
Would you believe it was wrong if you weren't a Jew? I should that define that better, Orthodox Jew. (I have Jewish friends who are completely fine with same-sex marriage.)
If you were agnostic, would you still see a reason to make same-sex marriage illegal?
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington I think in certain aspects such as marriage, there should be influence. That's where you and I disagree, obviously.[/B]
Why? Why should it have any influence? This is, in theory, a secular country.
So on one side we have the people pro same sex marriage: it's logical to assume that homosexual couples would like to get married just like heterosexual couples. We also have the heterosexual people who don't mind them getting married because it doesn't harm them.
This I get.
On the other side we have the people against same sex marriage: the people who have no logical reason to be against same sex marriage, but just... are against it.
This I don't get, unless someone can explain it to me.
They define marriage as solely being between a man and a woman and see no reason to change that. I.E. they're conservative.
What you have to do is give them reasons to change it, like the amount of pissed off homosexuals whose rights are being violated and who are being treated as second-class citizens.
Originally posted by Slash_KMC
First you asked me to provide arguments for same sex marriage. But now you're even asking me to provide the reasons that people against same sex marriage are giving. It's like I'm talking to myself. You also are trying to make it appear that you already asked me to provide the illogical reasons of being against same sex marriage while you haven't asked me once. But most importantly:
I'll keep repeating myself as you seem to blatantly ignore this:"Now if you know a logical reason against it, give it or admit you have none."
Yes, thanks for saying "at least in America". America is not the only place in the world where people get married.
Again, you haven't made ANY attempt to justify not letting same sex couples get married. Maybe if I repeat it again you'll actually answer instead of trying to get away without providing any kind of argument."Now if you know a logical reason against it, give it or admit you have none."
Debating with someone who doesn't provide any kind of argument is even more difficult.
I'm not getting what I want? For someone who throws the words emotional rationalization around so much you sure are getting emotional.
Originally posted by Lucius
This is saying that domestic partnerships = marriage, which they obviously don't
To be fair, I don't actually think the government should use the term marriage at all and instead simply make everyone legally domestic partners. What the individual couples want to call it is their own business.
That said, defining marriage as a legal union between two consenting adults increases overall wellbeing because it provides the same rights for everyone regardless of sexual orientation. Just because such a definition would offend a select group of intolerant people, is not a good enough reason to oppose gay marriage. We might as well oppose pornography too, or just about anything that offends people.
Unless you claim procreation as a key aspect of defining marriage, then this point is meaningless.
I have exercised incredible amounts of self-control in forcing myself to remember that you and I view the world from very, very different paradigms.You simply continue to mock me.
But what defines marriage as "between a man and a woman?" Who decides that? The majority? What else should the educated and rational majority decide?And an appeal to tradition is not rational response.
Religion is one of the primary sources for opposition to same-sex marriage, something I think would be obvious.
Would you believe it was wrong if you weren't a Jew? I should that define that better, Orthodox Jew. (I have Jewish friends who are completely fine with same-sex marriage.)
If you were agnostic, would you still see a reason to make same-sex marriage illegal?
Why? Why should it have any influence? This is, in theory, a secular country. [/B][/QUOTE]