There Are No Real Arguments Against Gay Marriage

Thinker Joined: Nov 12, 2006 Posts: 423

Saitou wrote:

Why should this require a vote?

All laws should reguire votes.[/quote]

They do, it is just that the more important ones are voted on by your government representatives. That's one reason why you have government.

Quote:

Sure I know. Obviously even things as abhorrent as slavery can be illegal since it once was. This is not an argument to throw out democracy for benevolent unelected rulers.

First don't you think that you should have one before considering throwing one out. Smile

Quote:

That is not the government's job nor should it be.

Wrong. Its one of the government's primary duties. To protect ALL of its citizens. You don't live in some Libertartian utopia where human nature isn't a factor. Rolling Eyes

Quote:

If people want to be considered married without state involvement they can do so. If they want the state to recognize their contract they must meet the terms required by the contract like any other state authorized contract.

There is common law marriage which is recognosied in some places as just about the same.

Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 5:02 am

AntJ313 wrote:

Take it to the present? Fine.

I want to marry a guy, I shouldn't need the damn permission of the rest of the (homophobic) polulation for me to do it....which, by the way, isn't going to be passed.

You want to marry a man and have it recognized by the state. The people in that state through their elected representatives do not provide for it or may even expressly forbid it. This alone does not make them homophobes although they are being discriminatory. I suggest you make an effort to change the minds of the people who live in society with you. Calling them homophobes will not go far in persuading them. The better method is to appeal to their sense of fairness without insulting them or undermining the value of the institution you wish to join. Much of the debate is over what the institution is and should be going forward.

Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 5:12 am

sjc wrote:

Quote:

That is not the government's job nor should it be.

Wrong. Its one of the government's primary duties. To protect ALL of its citizens. You don't live in some Libertartian utopia where human nature isn't a factor.

You say I'm wrong then try to support it with something that supports my position. It's sad you even attempt to debate people way above your level.

He said, "I thought the governmkent's job is to protect the minorities"--By definition this statement does not include everyone. Interpreted your way destroys the distinction that makes a minority.

I don't know if I've ever heard a Libertarian describe their vision as a utopia--just whatever truly free men would make of things. You an I agree that society wants some freedoms to be reigned in some. We disagree strongly on which ones and how much. You seem to think that government should be changing the diapers and breast feeding adults who are able in body and mind and I don't.

Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 5:15 am

Someone who wants to look at a gay person and tell them that they CAN'T marry whom they love who happens to be the same sex is homophobic just as a person who looks at a person and tells them they CAN'T marry someone on the basis of their race is a racist. And the state has no natural right to superimpose that they consider "moral" on the whole population.

I believe in things called personal rights. It's a "personal right" to marry whom you wish, as long as they want to as well. What's your problem with that?? Why does the rest of the population, whom I don't even know, have to "okay" it like they're my parents???

Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 5:41 am

AntJ313 wrote:

Someone who wants to look at a gay person and tell them that they CAN'T marry whom they love who happens to be the same sex is homophobic

Nope. Is someone who tells a man that they must use the male's bathroom sexist? How about society for insisting that a man in woman's clothing is inappropriate attire? How about minimum age laws? Is that because they hate the young? To many people you have to change what marriage actually is in order to include gays. To many a marriage is comprised of a husband and a wife. A husband is male and a wife is female.

AntJ313 wrote:

just as a person who looks at a person and tells them they CAN'T marry someone on the basis of their race is a racist.

Probably. Seems like an entirely arbitrary reason otherwise.

AntJ313 wrote:

And the state has no natural right to superimpose that they consider "moral" on the whole population.

True. And they can't. The state's influence is limited to those who live within the state. They also can't do it without the elected legislature writing a law unless the courts overstep their authority and write laws.

AntJ313 wrote:

I believe in things called personal rights. It's a "personal right" to marry whom you wish, as long as they want to as well. What's your problem with that?? Why does the rest of the population, whom I don't even know, have to "okay" it like they're my parents???

Because again, you want the rest of the population to support and recognize your choice in this case. How far do personal rights go? Do they allow you to ignore laws you don't like? Do they allow you to form contracts without meeting the requirements?

Thinker Joined: Nov 12, 2006 Posts: 423

Saitou wrote:

You say I'm wrong then try to support it with something that supports my position. It's sad you even attempt to debate people way above your level.

Are you sure you aren't a theist? You had stated "That is not the government's job nor should it be." and that is where I said you are wrong. And I wouldn't want to be on your level. I have too much respect for those around me to be that selfish.

Quote:

I don't know if I've ever heard a Libertarian describe their vision as a utopia

Maybe, but that is what they are trying to say. And just like most utopias it is unrealistic.

Quote:

--just whatever truly free men would make of things.

There ain't no such thing as a "truly free man". We all have certain responsibilities to those around us.

Quote:

We disagree strongly on which ones and how much. You seem to think that government should be changing the diapers and breast feeding adults who are able in body and mind and I don't.

I don't either. Some are poor through no fault of their own. If all it took was simple hard work to make it than everyone would be rich, but this is the real world and its not so simple as some would like it to be. You think that any form of aid from the government is wrong. It is the responsibility of the government to make sure that its citizens are healthy and educated to a reasonable level (Yes, I know you question what is reasonable).

All I know is that I live in a society where the government actually works for the people instead of a few at the top. Where SSM is a right as much as hetero marriage is. Where education and health care are a priority. You live in a soceity where, until recently, that was for the most part the opposite. And for far too many Americans the so-called American Dream^(tm) was just that a dream and quick becoming less and less a reality. Lets hope that the demcrats can fix the mess the republicans got your country in with that sort of self-centered thinking.

Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 6:44 am

Quote:

We disagree strongly on which ones and how much. You seem to think that government should be changing the diapers and breast feeding adults who are able in body and mind and I don't.

sjc wrote:

I don't either. Some are poor through no fault of their own.

If they are able in body and mind and they are truly poor then that could only mean they were denied better opportunities or that they made decisions that made them poor. In the USA opportunity abounds. Many poor in the USA made poor decisions and continue to and do not take advantage of opportunities.

sjc wrote:

If all it took was simple hard work to make it than everyone would be rich, but this is the real world and its not so simple as some would like it to be.

It is pretty simple but what it isn't is easy. How simple is it? You need to provide something that other people want and are willing to pay for. Providing that something is were it takes effort and work.

sjc wrote:

You think that any form of aid from the government is wrong.

No I don't. You've read enough of my posts that you should know otherwise. This proves you refuse to learn. Your thought process seems dominated by emotion.

sjc wrote:

It is the responsibility of the government to make sure that its citizens are healthy and educated to a reasonable level (Yes, I know you question what is reasonable).

I suppose the responsibilities of a government of, by, and for the people is defined by the people. I do not oppose government efforts to help the people. I especially support the government ensuring quality education to all.

sjc wrote:

All I know is that I live in a society where the government actually works for the people instead of a few at the top.

I don't know enough about your government to refute you--a courtesy you might think about returning. The government we have here is of our own making. We are some of the free-est people on this earth.

sjc wrote:

Where SSM is a right as much as hetero marriage is. Where education and health care are a priority. You live in a soceity where, until recently, that was for the most part the opposite. And for far too many Americans the so-called American Dream^(tm) was just that a dream and quick becoming less and less a reality. Lets hope that the demcrats can fix the mess the republicans got your country in with that sort of self-centered thinking.

The people in the US are currently enjoying the strongest economy in human history. Now that the Dems won the election the media might soon start reporting on it. They'll wait until after January though.

Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 7:20 am

Trying to get back on subject, in my view, we should separate the terms "marriage" and "union" where "marriage" is purely a religious term, and any church can choose to "marry" whom they feel like. While "union" is a legal term, and should be granted to any couple that wants it. For people that want a religious "marriage", someone "married" would be assumed to also be a legal union; unless some church did something wacco like 'married' a man and a dog, or a man and a cadaver, or something. But generally speaking, a "union" would be assumed for a "marriage".

Of course, this isn't a new idea, And an idea that probably won't come to pass anytime soon, unfortunately. But I think social pressures will eventually bring this to pass.

Thinker Joined: Nov 12, 2006 Posts: 423

Saitou wrote:

If they are able in body and mind and they are truly poor then that could only mean they were denied better opportunities or that they made decisions that made them poor.

The climate, in the USA, now is to outsource many of these jobs to countries where the the pay is next to nothing, so in fact they had the opportunity taken away from many of them.

Quote:

In the USA opportunity abounds. Many poor in the USA made poor decisions and continue to and do not take advantage of opportunities.

These opportunities are becoming less and less.

Quote:

It is pretty simple but what it isn't is easy. How simple is it? You need to provide something that other people want and are willing to pay for. Providing that something is were it takes effort and work.

You have a very unrealistic idea of the way things actually are.

Quote:

No I don't. You've read enough of my posts that you should know otherwise. This proves you refuse to learn. Your thought process seems dominated by emotion.

Yes, I've read enough of your post to know what you truly mean. You see public education, and heath care as being none of the business of the State. That it should be up to the so-called Free Market to run them instead. If anything the USA has taught us about what happens when they private sector manages these things the quality of them suffers greatly for the majority over that of a minority.

Quote:

I suppose the responsibilities of a government of, by, and for the people is defined by the people. I do not oppose government efforts to help the people. I especially support the government ensuring quality education to all.

Then why have you said that you don't support public education and are for private education instead?

Quote:

I don't know enough about your government to refute you--a courtesy you might think about returning.

That's the thing. It is in the best interests of others to know much of your government and system. As I've said, "When sleeping with an elephant every unexpected twitch and movement could prove to be fatal.." P. E. Trudeau. We have to make the effort to know you. Most Americans don't bother to know even their closes allies.

Quote:

The government we have here is of our own making.

Exactly.

Quote:

We are some of the free-est people on this earth.

No, you're not. You are getting less free all the time..... While up here, in Canada, we are gaining more and more rights and freedoms. i.e SSM, medical pot, etc, etc...

Quote:

The people in the US are currently enjoying the strongest economy in human history. Now that the Dems won the election the media might soon start reporting on it. They'll wait until after January though.

What you seem to fail to see, and I think that is is willful on your part, is that more and more this economy is translating less and less to the majority of Americans. You are going by what I are called "good facts" which can be manipulated instead of "real facts" which can't be so easily manipulated.

An example of a "good fact" is like with the recent announcement that 91% of all American high schoolers, who took their final exams, passed and then graduated. On the surface this sounds quite impressive, but what they don't tell you is that they didn't count the students who dropped out and never took these exams. That is around a third of the total. So, a "real fact" is that this is only 91% of two-thirds of the total who graduated. Around 61%. A little over half, not so impressive. The republicans do the same sort of "good fact" manipulation with unemployment numbers as well.

As I said, now that the democrats have a majority, in both house, this will hopefully change and that gay persons will have the same rights and freedoms as everyone else in America. Also, come 2008 if a democrat will get elected things will improve for all and America can concentrate on what is truly important instead of what it has been doing.

Thinker Joined: Nov 12, 2006 Posts: 423

caseagainstfaith wrote:

Trying to get back on subject, in my view, we should separate the terms "marriage" and "union" where "marriage" is purely a religious term, and any church can choose to "marry" whom they feel like. While "union" is a legal term, and should be granted to any couple that wants it. For people that want a religious "marriage", someone "married" would be assumed to also be a legal union; unless some church did something wacco like 'married' a man and a dog, or a man and a cadaver, or something. But generally speaking, a "union" would be assumed for a "marriage".

Of course, this isn't a new idea, And an idea that probably won't come to pass anytime soon, unfortunately. But I think social pressures will eventually bring this to pass.

Actually marriage is not a religious term, wedding is the religious term. Marriage is a civil term since you don't require ANY form of religion to get married.

Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 1:04 pm

Saitou wrote:

The only reason I can see for government to be involved is to encourage the behavior. Healthy marriages and families help increase the odds of producing the best citizens for the future of our country.

Nothing like using vague generalizations to attempt and make a point.

I'd like to add that, if anything, social science has shown marriage to be meaningless in the development of law-abiding citizens. All else is myth

Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 1:07 pm

materialguy wrote:

I don't agree that we can say with any confidence that the stable pairing of mates (if sleepr intends "mate grouping" to mean that) among most people would happen without legal contracts or benefits.

Not at all. I would actually argue that marriage doesn't provide the "stable pairing of mates" as claimed and marriage isn't needed for such an end if that is the goal.

materialguy wrote:

My ignorance tells me I need to learn more about this before opening up the doors to polygamy.

As a libertarian, I would argue the opposite. We need to learn more before closing the doors on polygamy.

Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 1:17 am

Saitou wrote:

In the USA opportunity abounds. Many poor in the USA made poor decisions and continue to and do not take advantage of opportunities.

Except that many of the poor stay under-educated, leading to their ignorance on what is a good opportunity and what is not. Many in this position think the lottery is a good opportunity and this is not their fault, but the fault of those who never corrected them. Another great example might be a gang. A gang and a life of crime might look like a pretty great opportunity when you have nothing and are ignorant of the negatives like the likelihood of capture upon criminal action.

Another great example is one you like to bring up, about mothers who have un-protected sex and are not ready for the consequences. Unready mothers having children. Sex-ed (and I mean good sex-ed) would have really helped them. Math skills enough to know why prophylactics are so great, social upbringing enough to know that abortion is ok and not evil, and so much more.

Remember that stupidity is almost always due to ignorance and children should not be put into the position later in life to where they might not know what is a positive or negative decision. This is called a cycle and your attitude perpetuates it.

Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 2:55 am

Saitou, let's go back in history, even though you dislike the subject...

If a white person wanted to marry a black person in Alabama 100 years ago, should they have to wait on a the population to vote, and okay a marriage that previously wasn't recognized by the law?

Thinker Joined: Nov 12, 2006 Posts: 423

sleepr wrote:

Except that many of the poor stay under-educated, leading to their ignorance on what is a good opportunity and what is not. Many in this position think the lottery is a good opportunity and this is not their fault, but the fault of those who never corrected them. Another great example might be a gang. A gang and a life of crime might look like a pretty great opportunity when you have nothing and are ignorant of the negatives like the likelihood of capture upon criminal action.

Another great example is one you like to bring up, about mothers who have un-protected sex and are not ready for the consequences. Unready mothers having children. Sex-ed (and I mean good sex-ed) would have really helped them. Math skills enough to know why prophylactics are so great, social upbringing enough to know that abortion is ok and not evil, and so much more.

Remember that stupidity is almost always due to ignorance and children should not be put into the position later in life to where they might not know what is a positive or negative decision. This is called a cycle and your attitude perpetuates it.

That is why it is to the best interests of the state to make sure that everyone has a reasonable level of education.


Create an account	Home · Articles · Downloads · Video Library · Forums · Chat Room · aStore