|
Post by xShadowLordx on Nov 11, 2010 0:31:07 GMT
That article specifically states that marriage is about children. It isn't. ...And it's exactly that kind of thinking that leads to teenage pregnancy, unwanted children, sexual looseness, STDs, rampant abortion, single parents, and the list goes on an on. Sure, marriage isn't just about children. It's partly love too. (You're not gonna marry someone you can't stand, right?) But it's main purpose certainly is children. Otherwise, why would anybody get married in the first place? If it was entirely about love, why would it matter to have marriage anyway? Can't lovers just be satisfied to live together and spend time together? Why then, would marriage even exist as a legal institution at all??? If it's the sanctity of marriage, and the traditional-ness (is that a word?) of marriage, and the use of marriage as a holy, sacred word that has you worried, then why do you not care when people rip apart their vows regularly but do care when a couple people obey their vows and stay together forever and just happen to be the same sex? I happen to be against divorce, as a matter of fact. The reason for the high divorce rates in this country is that most people in America nowadays have degraded morals. Most of the time, when they get married, they don't know what they're getting into. They don't know their partner well enough before they get married. And some of them are just immature and aren't capable of even handling a marriage at all, or they think it's a game and they don't treat it with the immense respect it deserves. True, a lot of people do use the "sanctity" argument, but the truth is, most of those people are hypocrites and they don't follow their religion. I've met a lot of people who call themselves Christians (and actually this goes for all religions) who are actually terrible, stupid people in reality. Personally though, I consider myself able to use the sanctity argument because I am a very religious person and I actually give marriage the "sanctity" it deserves.
|
|
|
Post by disabled on Nov 11, 2010 1:16:34 GMT
The reason for this has nothing to do with marriage or not. Its because parents teach their children jack shit about life. Either the parents are over protective and as soon as the kids are on their own they go nuts, or the parents live the life you described themself and pass it to their children.
I'm not sure how close you are to being married or how the people around you live their life. There is a huge part of people who marry because they love each other. Then there is the part of people who marry because they already have a child coming. And then there are the people who marry because the religion tells them not to have sex unless married. Marriage because of love is what most people I know would call the normality. Marriage because of children is "for the poor and stupid" people (well thats more a cliché, but there is some truth in that). And if you think sex is just for getting children, I feel very sorry for you.
Back to gay marriage: If your church forbids gay marriage... I don't give a damn. Some gay people probably do, but if someone wants to not like gay people, in the USA thats probably legal under the freedom of speech. But from the legal side of view, if a gay couple wants to adopt a child, they should be able to do it. And they should of course be able to get the same tax benefits as straight couples can. And a gay couple who wants to adopt a child has probably though a lot better about it then the average straight parents. So in my opinion, even from a procreation point of view, gay couples should be allowed to marry.
|
|
|
Post by sandmaster on Nov 11, 2010 3:21:58 GMT
LOOK AT TSL's POST! He just said that it's a CHOICE. He stated that because [point], then [conclusion]. [Point] was false, so he has no proof. This article is disgusting. They base their entire argument on Biblical ethics and trends about Marriage that are biased and without sources: Who is Stanley Kurtz, the only person with some 'expertise?' According to Wikipedia, he's just a conservative commentator. Anthropologist, my ass. If you can back up in a relativistic manner, why these morals and ethics stated in an article based entirely on seeing the world in such a close-minded way, I could take your argument under consideration. Slippery Slope. And, IMHO, a slippery slope lined with manure and vomit. Please show me any moment in history without some marital deviance in it. None? OH WAIT. Point 2: Teenage pregnancies have nothing to do with marriage, and it's mainly because of the lack of sexual education, availability of contraceptives, awareness of the consequences of unprotected sex and the dangers of rape, and many things, none of which have to do with the moral or legal binding of two people. Also, 'unwanted children' and yet gay marriage is wrong because children cannot be conceived (and you completely ignore adoption, third-party insemination, and sticking a Wing-dang-doodle in a vagina, a process that is both simple and can be gone regardless of your affiliation or identity). Tell me, exactly, how STD's and sexual looseness, are supposed to be cause by 2-person relationships? Source please. Also, maybe your moral opinion is just different form the moral opinion of the world. "Yeah, baby-farms are respectable!" said TSL. Sanctity is exactly the problem here. Marriage should be more permanent, and even life-long, but it should be fluid. You cannot force someone into a position where they can't move forward or backwarOH WAIT THAT'S SANCTITY. Baby farms.
|
|
|
Post by kuraikiba on Nov 20, 2010 2:48:54 GMT
Well, I was thinking about this the other day and a brilliant idea came to mind, which has made me change my standing on the "choice vs. not-a-choice" issue. After much thought, I have come to the conclusion that, anthropologically, homosexuality must be a choice. To explain this, we can simply use Darwin's theory of natural selection. Natural selection says that organisms of any given species that develop a trait which helps them survive and/or reproduce, will fare better other organisms of the same species that lack that trait, and will eventually be the only ones left. Conversely, organisms that develop a trait that hinders their ability to survive and/or reproduce, will fare worse than those lacking the trait, and will die out. This is exactly the case with homosexuality. If homosexuality were a biological trait, it must have originated, by chance, as an abnormal trait in one particular human, or a small group of humans. Now, a homosexual human is obviously not able to reproduce. Therefore, all the homosexuals would have died out shortly after the first homosexual humans appeared. Some people may argue that, because there are still homosexuals around today, they obviously haven't died out, meaning it wasn't a passed-on trait. Some may say that it is actually a birth defect. A possible explanation for this is that--like all birth defects and the like--a certain proportion of the number of humans in the world could have been born with homosexuality. In other words, at any given time in Earth's history, 1 out of every x humans would be homosexual (Just like--with all other birth defects--1 out of every x humans born is affected with y birth defect). However, this is clearly not the case, since statistics show that the proportion of homosexual people to total population has gone up drastically over time. In case you didn't bother to read all that (or if it confused you), the bottom line is this: Homosexuality must be a choice, because if it were not a choice, one of two things would be the case:
A) If homosexuality was an abnormal biological trait, there would be no homosexuals in the world today, because the earlier ones would have all died out from lack of ability to reproduce and pass on homosexuality to offspring.
OR
B) If homosexuality were, instead, a naturally occurring birth defect, the proportion of homosexuals to the total world population would remain consistent throughout human history, assuming that a birth defect has a 1/x chance of occurring per baby born.(Note: None of this applies to bisexuals. Using natural selection, I can understand that bisexuality still allows an organism to reproduce. Therefore, bisexuality might be a natural occurrence, because organisms that had it would be able to pass it on to offspring.) Edit: Wow, this is the most intelligent, thought-out post I've made in this entire thread. ;D Shadow, I am extremely impressed by this argument. Not only did you give a reasonable explanation, you used genetic science to prove it, and backed it up with a fairly neutral, yet intelligent, point of view. +1 karma for this. Quite incredible. (Btw, exactly what religion are you? It sounds very familiar to mine in parts, but I am not exactly sure.) You, on the other hand, Sandmaster, are nearing the point of being abusive. You're starting to be what I was on this thread, just different side of it. That is NOT a road you want to go down. I'm sorry, but I really don't have any choice but to smite you. Your conduct has been APPALLING.
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Nov 20, 2010 3:06:18 GMT
I fail to see how whether it is genetic or not truly explains if it is right or wrong. I must say, it is perfectly fine. I don't see how you are negatively affected by someone you know being gay unless you yourself have a moral issue with it.
Take the closet gay such as myself. No one cares that I'm gay, nor are they affected by my homosexuality. Though, as soon as I come out, I am almost certain people that may have been fine with or even liked me, will become morally offended by me. Would this be my fault? I wouldn't have changed in the least.
Also, try to stay away from using your own views on unrelated subjects in the debates TSL. This isn't about Abortion, Sexual Looseness or Divorce.
|
|
|
Post by sandmaster on Nov 20, 2010 5:33:19 GMT
Not only did you give a reasonable explanation, you used genetic science to prove it, and backed it up with a fairly neutral, yet intelligent, point of view. Genetic science? Can you cite some research done by actual biologists about this? I'm sorry, but is disputing the individual points of an argument 'abusive' now? Is, after noting the fallacies in his arguments, the stating of my opinion offensive now? Because offensive or not, he's still fallacious and, while he can choose to ignore my comments, which I am making in rebuttal to his claims and not as points of my own, he can't ignore the fact that he is absolutely and self-evidently wrong. Is this an attempt to try to get me to stop pointing flaws int these arguments?
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on Nov 20, 2010 6:23:13 GMT
The only problem with Sandmaster's posts is the cursing that appears (and spreads, apparetnly...): other than that, Sandmaster manages to point out the fallacies noted by various debaters who are now ineligible for the Debate Badge. QwertyuiopThePie also does this, except without cursing...
This is a major problem with debates: too many users argue fallaciously and either cite horrifically biased sources or no sources at all. Maybe I should recommend that posts in the debate board include at least one source that does not come from a known conservative or known liberal group, and that people don't address each other directly?
|
|
|
Post by ganondorfchampin on Nov 20, 2010 13:07:32 GMT
Not necessarily. That implies that homosexuality is genetic (or, at any rate, the same logic that can be shown to prove that infertility does not exist). It is defeated by: a) All those church people and homophobes who eventually came out of the closet, which they would NOT have done if it was a choice. b) The fact that you cannot look at a man and find them sexually attractive, any more than a gay man can do the same to a woman. I digress. Say there was a drag queen, but you didn't know they were a drag queen? Could you find them attractive? Of course this is irrelevant, because the moment I see what is beneath their pants I would be instantly repulsed. [ignorance] Now gay sex allows you to do black magic. That is how Turing invented the computer, as computers run on black magic. That is why people choose to be gay, so they can summon Satan and gain magic powers. [/ignorance]
|
|
|
Post by Necrotising Fasciitis on Nov 20, 2010 18:01:18 GMT
I haven't been reading this thread But you guys like lesbians, right? Who doesn't get off to lesbians? So there, being gay creates LESBIANS FUUUUCKKK YEAAAHHH
|
|
|
Post by kuraikiba on Nov 20, 2010 18:09:31 GMT
To GGoodie: I still find his argument rather good, because he used a rather neutral tone, not being abusive.
To sandmaster: You curse excessively, you are abrasive, sarcastic, and overall abusive towards whoever doesn't agree with you. You jump almost immediately into an ad hominem stance, and often use the Poisoning the well fallacy. I can't POSSIBLY respect someone who is more likely to drop the F-bomb than use a logical stance.
To Veers: How can his point of view count if he clearly uses excessive cursing? He sometimes gets more abusive than I was on this thread.
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Nov 20, 2010 18:32:52 GMT
Abuse =/= Cursing Abuse =/= Being rude. Abuse = Flaming. Sandmaster =/= Flaming. Sandmaster =/= Abusive.
|
|
|
Post by sandmaster on Nov 20, 2010 18:45:01 GMT
Yes, but the argument was shown to be wrong.
My cursing actually coincides with my regular speech and I have been trying to avoid cursing as often as possible but my use of colorful language does not disprove my points. My so-called 'abuse' was, as I have said already, an opinion, and not a point, and could be disregarded as commentary rather than actual argument. Even then, I have failed to insult anyone and only made such commentary about the individual points.
Ad hominem: The opposition is wrong because he is stupid. Me: The points are stupid because they are wrong.'
And poisoning the well? Can you give me an example of that?
See that? That's a clear use of my method of speech to instill distrust and skepticism towards the points themselves. My points are being ignored by you because you decide to vent on a personal trait rather than the debate itself.
*Ahem*
"[EDIT: Censored because the censor doesn't know how to do its job properly.]"
BAM. Suddenly logic collapses in on itself.
"Had I known that my swearing disproves my points, I never would have done such a horrible thing!"
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty333 on Nov 29, 2010 2:26:26 GMT
Yeah, I think it doesn't matter. As long as whoever is gay doesn't shove it in another person's face, I don't have anything against homosexuality.
|
|
|
Post by sandmaster on Nov 30, 2010 3:09:27 GMT
Yeah, I think it doesn't matter. As long as whoever is gay doesn't shove it in another person's face, I don't have anything against homosexuality. Please explain. I find no point in further arguing. You argue, you're just putting your opinion out, nothing gets done. This debate topic is "is it OK to be Gay?" and not "Should homosexuality be treated as a normal phenomena?" Both ask about the same thing but the second one asks for a conclusion which society should follow. This question, the first, asks for your opinion and asks for you to defend it as an opinion and not a resolution. Therefore the whole point is to put your opinion out and argue it. Christ had meals with prostitutes and forgave them, preached to social lepers, and was the merciful being we should be. As stated before, the question is not whether we should be Christlike towards people acting immorally, but whether homosexuality is immoral in the first place. You can act Christlike to a murderer and you can act Christlike to a priest but what we're discussing is whether being gay makes you closer to one, the other, or neither. I'll say this: I don't like gays at all. That doesn't give me a right to treat them unlike Christ would have. Christ saw everyone could be redeemed, so I should as well. The subtle point made here is 'redeemed,' which implies that it is a choice. That seems to be the crux of the past few blabbering statements you made in response to several people in the debate, so just stick with that for whatever reason. Feel free to abandon it and maybe even go as far as considering that there is no moral value to who you have sex with, let lone are attracted to, and maybe we can put this all behind us.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty333 on Dec 2, 2010 3:38:12 GMT
Sandmaster, I mean that as long as the person who is gay doesn't shove it on me and always talk about it, then I'm fine.
|
|
|
Post by Fireball9903 on Dec 2, 2010 11:43:39 GMT
I oppose to gay people.Ok,thread done,we all got pwned by generalveers.
|
|
|
Post by V.I.R.O.S. on Dec 2, 2010 21:44:54 GMT
I oppose to gay people.Ok,thread done,we all got pwned by generalveers. What? I don't even understand what you are trying to say.
|
|
|
Post by kuraikiba on Dec 2, 2010 22:25:10 GMT
I think that whoever made this thread probably didn't know it'd get this crazy.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Dec 3, 2010 1:15:19 GMT
How did everyone get pwned by Veers?
|
|
|
Post by kuraikiba on Dec 3, 2010 1:24:20 GMT
I don't know, but I retire from this board. It's gotten me nothing but trouble.
|
|
|
Post by sandmaster on Dec 4, 2010 1:45:26 GMT
That's nice, now could Fireball please elaborate? Why?
|
|
|
Post by kuraikiba on Dec 27, 2010 22:33:04 GMT
I am confused here.
|
|
|
Post by sandmaster on Dec 29, 2010 3:49:57 GMT
So...what point are people going to try to make now?
|
|
|
Post by kuraikiba on Dec 30, 2010 20:18:15 GMT
I don't think people are going to. If two sides don't relent, they both wear down, and stop fighting.
|
|
|
Post by tortureking on Jan 4, 2011 14:41:44 GMT
I have no problem with it, though the needless flamboyance associated with homosexuality annoys the hell out of me.
|
|
|
Post by kuraikiba on Jan 4, 2011 21:13:07 GMT
Yeah, it is rather melodramatic.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Jan 4, 2011 21:45:34 GMT
Of course, that flamboyancy is almost always nonexistent. Tis stereotyping like many other things. When it is used by anyone, gay or straight, it's almost always a joke.
|
|
|
Post by kuraikiba on Jan 4, 2011 22:09:41 GMT
Antigay gays? Either that's a paradox, or just plain strange.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Jan 5, 2011 1:54:30 GMT
A joke. Not antigay. Sometimes it can be used to be antigay, but the usage in itself isn't any more antigay than my Jewish friend that comes up with all sorts of Jew jokes is anti-Semitic. Although it seems that a lot of extremely antigay politicians end up being gay in the end, so that kind of works, too.
|
|
|
Post by speedyclock on Jan 8, 2011 21:41:12 GMT
There is nothing Wrong with Bro-Mance
just don't shove it down our throats please.
(No Sexual Meaning behind that)
|
|
|