Reasons for Opposition to Gay Marriage?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Fisher321:
Secular Reasons?

Because its downright disgusting. A man sodomizing another man is absolutely horrifying to me. Plus I will refuse to take another man seriously if they willingly have sex with a man.

Inb4 I'm a bigoted Christian
Inb4 We should outlaw all other disgusting things
Inb4 I'm a bigoted Christian
Inb4 Lesbian argument
Inb4 Some other reason why I'm stupid and Ignorant

I'm sure I will get flamed hardcore for this but I'm standing by my values and morals. Even if I wasn't a Christian I would see this as downright disgusting.

Inb4 I'm a stupid Christian

Stupid? Not sure I'd say that.

But you're definitly a bigoted Christian.

Inb4 means nothing to me. This isn't 4chan, sport.

Fisher321:
Secular Reasons?

Because its downright disgusting. A man sodomizing another man is absolutely horrifying to me. Plus I will refuse to take another man seriously if they willingly have sex with a man.

Inb4 I'm a bigoted Christian
Inb4 We should outlaw all other disgusting things
Inb4 I'm a bigoted Christian
Inb4 Lesbian argument
Inb4 Some other reason why I'm stupid and Ignorant

I'm sure I will get flamed hardcore for this but I'm standing by my values and morals. Even if I wasn't a Christian I would see this as downright disgusting.

Inb4 I'm a stupid Christian

Okay, so now we have some reasons. Now, does anyone have any good reasons?

Fisher321:
Secular Reasons?

Because its downright disgusting. A man sodomizing another man is absolutely horrifying to me. Plus I will refuse to take another man seriously if they willingly have sex with a man.

Inb4 I'm a bigoted Christian
Inb4 We should outlaw all other disgusting things
Inb4 I'm a bigoted Christian
Inb4 Lesbian argument
Inb4 Some other reason why I'm stupid and Ignorant

I'm sure I will get flamed hardcore for this but I'm standing by my values and morals. Even if I wasn't a Christian I would see this as downright disgusting.

Inb4 I'm a stupid Christian

I find furry sex disgusting and don't take them seriously, despite thatI dont think we shouldn't allow them to do....whatever it is they do.

OT: The only secular reason I can think of is that it undermines societal values, but even that is a really shitty argument as it is based on nothing more then others' disapproval as gay marriage in and of itself does no measurable harm to society.

Fisher321:
Secular Reasons?

Because its downright disgusting. A man sodomizing another man is absolutely horrifying to me. Plus I will refuse to take another man seriously if they willingly have sex with a man.

Inb4 I'm a bigoted Christian
Inb4 We should outlaw all other disgusting things
Inb4 I'm a bigoted Christian
Inb4 Lesbian argument
Inb4 Some other reason why I'm stupid and Ignorant

I'm sure I will get flamed hardcore for this but I'm standing by my values and morals. Even if I wasn't a Christian I would see this as downright disgusting.

Inb4 I'm a stupid Christian

You know what? I happen to think that bigots are downright disgusting (and as someone said before, "inb4" does not mean anything, and certainly doesn't excuse your post). So, if we're using this as a reason, should we put a law in place that restricts your freedoms, and makes you feel like a second class citizen?

NO, and listen carefully now, because PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT OPINIONS. You think gays are disgusting. I think you're disgusting. But enacting laws on these reasons is just fucking stupid. Usually I wouldn't accuse people of being stupid or ignorant, because I don't know much about them, but if you seriously think that that post resembles a reason, let alone a secular reason (because let's face it. The reason you think YOUR disgust is "correct" is because it's in the bible, and christian's are always right. right?), let alone a GOOD secular reason, then you are definitely a bigot, you're probably not a lesbian (wtf is the "lesbian argument" anyway?), and you're stupid and ignorant. No amount of inb4-ing will help you here.

vonmanstein:

Aris Khandr:

vonmanstein:
In a democracy you don't need a good argument in an academic sense, you need popular support, that's argument enough. Traditional Marriage has been upheld in referendums throughout the country, that's the will of the people, and it's good enough

There are already two cases set to go to the Supreme Court on the subject. One in regards to DOMA, one about Prop 8 in California. It seems unlikely that either will survive, and with Obama in the White House, and retiring justices are more likely than not to be replaced by justices who are pro-gay marriage. The "will of the people" will soon be irrelevant, as the US has quite the history of overturning the tyranny of the majority. Enjoy your "traditional marriage" for now, because the days of "separate but equal" are numbered.

Yes, Obama filling the supreme court bench with anti-constitution liberal activists certainly represents a rather disturbing development. I find the concept of judicial activism more disturbing than it's results though, the fact that individuals who weren't elected possess more power than those who were may serve to diminish government by popular consensus, which, may i remind you, is the soul of democracy.

We meet again other Manstein....

I would disagree that judges making these important decisions from the bench is against what the American system is supposed to be, in fact I believe thats exactly how its supposed to be. The Constitution has been liberally interpreted since our founding. As for the judicial branch itself their very duty is to make the calls the politicians cannot. Remember the United States is not a Democracy, it is a Republic ruled by Law, not the majority. This is why judges serve for life. They do not have to be bothered by what is politically acceptable. They only worry about what they think the Law allows and what it doesn't.

TKretts3:

vonmanstein:

TKretts3:
I really don't see how majority means anything in terms of rights and wrongs. Slavery was pretty darn popular back in it's age, as was segregation at points in history. If you're a Republican, then I can point to the election. Obama was popular among voters, his election was the will of the majority. Does that mean that he was the best choice?

You erroneously assume that morality is objective.

I don't care much for those silly theories that go around yelling that everyone is right in their own way.

You erroneously assume that's the insinuation. I simply assert that your conclusion is conjecture, and it is.

Gethsemani:

vonmanstein:

Now that is quite an inference, unfortunately you are mistaken. When I spoke of gay marriage as not being objectively moral i didn't imply that it was immoral, simply amoral. I support democracy and freedom of choice as this model more closely resembles the natural order, if many choose to deny the freedom of choice to some, that's humanity not immorality.

You can't continue to argue that it is moral without presenting an appropriate moral code against which it can be judged. Until you do that your assertions remain baseless conjecture.

Good luck finding such a morality, conclusions to pursuits like these have eluded humanity since the gift of sentience was first bestowed.

If many choose to deny the freedom of choice to some that's fascism or tyranny of the masses, both of which are in direct moral violation to the principles of democracy and humanism.

You are missing the very smoking gun here: That humanism, which is the philosophy upon we build democracy, considers equal rights and freedom for everyone to be paramount for the success of society. If you wish to base your moral standpoint on democracy (in itself a political ideology, not a philosophy or moral code) and freedom, then you are inevitably harking back to humanism.

As a humanist you can never argue in favor of restricting the freedom or rights of any individual or group of individuals, because then you are violating the very principles which you supposedly support and want to uphold. That you fail to see this really speaks more about your inexperience with basic philosophy and moral discussion then it does about SonicWaffle.

So, tldr: Either you support freedom and democracy, in which case you can't argue in favor of restricting the rights and freedoms of others, or you are in favor of restricting the rights and freedoms of others, in which case you can't support freedom and democracy. It really is that simple.

ach.... So easily we forget history.

Humanism(academic definition) is a renaissance era philosophy which is preceded by the development of classical attic democracy, and if the successor cannot influence the predecessor in a historical sense then democracy as it was created cannot contain a humanist influences.

democracy in a more traditional sense is a simple system of power in the hands of the majority. MODERN liberal democracy has come to embrace humanism, but the notion that humanism and "human rights" are inherent in democracy is fallacious. No democracy has ever embraced humanism, and i doubt any ever shall because humanism is a conceptual construct and runs perpendicular to human nature and general will. Humanism is an ideal which liberals propound, but it isn't integral to democracy and never will be.

tldr: one can support democracy and freedom without supporting humanism, as humanism isn't inherent in democracy or freedom.

Shock and Awe:

vonmanstein:

Aris Khandr:

There are already two cases set to go to the Supreme Court on the subject. One in regards to DOMA, one about Prop 8 in California. It seems unlikely that either will survive, and with Obama in the White House, and retiring justices are more likely than not to be replaced by justices who are pro-gay marriage. The "will of the people" will soon be irrelevant, as the US has quite the history of overturning the tyranny of the majority. Enjoy your "traditional marriage" for now, because the days of "separate but equal" are numbered.

Yes, Obama filling the supreme court bench with anti-constitution liberal activists certainly represents a rather disturbing development. I find the concept of judicial activism more disturbing than it's results though, the fact that individuals who weren't elected possess more power than those who were may serve to diminish government by popular consensus, which, may i remind you, is the soul of democracy.

We meet again other Manstein....

I would disagree that judges making these important decisions from the bench is against what the American system is supposed to be, in fact I believe thats exactly how its supposed to be. The Constitution has been liberally interpreted since our founding. As for the judicial branch itself their very duty is to make the calls the politicians cannot. Remember the United States is not a Democracy, it is a Republic ruled by Law, not the majority. This is why judges serve for life. They do not have to be bothered by what is politically acceptable. They only worry about what they think the Law allows and what it doesn't.

yes, but our court system isn't republican either. It's dictatorial, and void of any popular influence. Judaical activism didn't exist before the mid twentieth century, and was certainly not the intent of our founders. We elect politicians to write and pass legislation, the courts exist to determine whether these laws are in line with the rules for writing laws (the constitution), the courts do not exist to write laws themselves. This empowerment of the judicial branch upsets the balance of power to such an extent that all national elections matter only insofar as they influence the composition of the supreme court bench. We now have one oligarchic branch of government which possess unchecked power, and the threat to democratic people's government has never been in greater danger.

vonmanstein:

Shock and Awe:

vonmanstein:

yes, but our court system isn't republican either. It's dictatorial, and void of any popular influence. Judaical activism didn't exist before the mid twentieth century, and was certainly not the intent of our founders. We elect politicians to write and pass legislation, the courts exist to determine whether these laws are in line with the rules for writing laws (the constitution), the courts do not exist to write laws themselves. This empowerment of the judicial branch upsets the balance of power to such an extent that all national elections matter only insofar as they influence the composition of the supreme court bench. We now have one oligarchic branch of government which possess unchecked power, and the threat to democratic people's government has never been in greater danger.

You seem to be misunderstanding exactly what the Supreme Court can and has done. If you look at the history of supreme court cases they have never done anything more then uphold or strike laws; they have never done more. Not that I have seen anyway. The court does not have the ability to bring anything to the table, they can only react to laws when they are brought before them. In addition to this if Congress or any other legislative body (whichever is applicable) can simply turn around and amend what the court said was unconstitutional and do it again. This happened with the text book example of Dred Scott v. Sandford. This case was annulled after the passing of the 13th and 14th amendment. Legislation checked judicial. In the case of Gay Marriage specifically Congress has tried before the make a Amendment to outlaw it which would specifically check all the courts on the issue. However they failed because the Legislators elected by the people, for the people, and of the people said no. The system worked.

I understand what you are saying, but I do not believe it is the case. (Law pun; HA!) The checks and balances have been working. The only reason in my mind that the political right often complains of judicial activism is that they are often on the losing end and have been for quite some time.

Shock and Awe:

vonmanstein:

Shock and Awe:

yes, but our court system isn't republican either. It's dictatorial, and void of any popular influence. Judaical activism didn't exist before the mid twentieth century, and was certainly not the intent of our founders. We elect politicians to write and pass legislation, the courts exist to determine whether these laws are in line with the rules for writing laws (the constitution), the courts do not exist to write laws themselves. This empowerment of the judicial branch upsets the balance of power to such an extent that all national elections matter only insofar as they influence the composition of the supreme court bench. We now have one oligarchic branch of government which possess unchecked power, and the threat to democratic people's government has never been in greater danger.

You seem to be misunderstanding exactly what the Supreme Court can and has done. If you look at the history of supreme court cases they have never done anything more then uphold or strike laws; they have never done more. Not that I have seen anyway. The court does not have the ability to bring anything to the table, they can only react to laws when they are brought before them. In addition to this if Congress or any other legislative body (whichever is applicable) can simply turn around and amend what the court said was unconstitutional and do it again. This happened with the text book example of Dred Scott v. Sandford. This case was annulled after the passing of the 13th and 14th amendment. Legislation checked judicial. In the case of Gay Marriage specifically Congress has tried before the make a Amendment to outlaw it which would specifically check all the courts on the issue. However they failed because the Legislators elected by the people, for the people, and of the people said no. The system worked.

I understand what you are saying, but I do not believe it is the case. (Law pun; HA!) The checks and balances have been working. The only reason in my mind that the political right often complains of judicial activism is that they are often on the losing end and have been for quite some time.

I'm sorry, I was being opaque. I didn't mean that the courts "wrote" legislation in a literal sense, i meant; the courts take extreme liberties with the constitution which allow them to impose policy along ideological fault lines. If the constitution couldn't be easily amended i would agree with you, but because the legislative branch possesses the capacity to easily modify it's stipulations the power of the court should be strictly limited to literal interpretation. I oppose activism because the application of subjectivity to the constitution may be used to advance non-national interests, as the people's voice goes unheard. (slippery slope too)

vonmanstein:

Shock and Awe:

vonmanstein:

yes, but our court system isn't republican either. It's dictatorial, and void of any popular influence. Judaical activism didn't exist before the mid twentieth century, and was certainly not the intent of our founders. We elect politicians to write and pass legislation, the courts exist to determine whether these laws are in line with the rules for writing laws (the constitution), the courts do not exist to write laws themselves. This empowerment of the judicial branch upsets the balance of power to such an extent that all national elections matter only insofar as they influence the composition of the supreme court bench. We now have one oligarchic branch of government which possess unchecked power, and the threat to democratic people's government has never been in greater danger.

You seem to be misunderstanding exactly what the Supreme Court can and has done. If you look at the history of supreme court cases they have never done anything more then uphold or strike laws; they have never done more. Not that I have seen anyway. The court does not have the ability to bring anything to the table, they can only react to laws when they are brought before them. In addition to this if Congress or any other legislative body (whichever is applicable) can simply turn around and amend what the court said was unconstitutional and do it again. This happened with the text book example of Dred Scott v. Sandford. This case was annulled after the passing of the 13th and 14th amendment. Legislation checked judicial. In the case of Gay Marriage specifically Congress has tried before the make a Amendment to outlaw it which would specifically check all the courts on the issue. However they failed because the Legislators elected by the people, for the people, and of the people said no. The system worked.

I understand what you are saying, but I do not believe it is the case. (Law pun; HA!) The checks and balances have been working. The only reason in my mind that the political right often complains of judicial activism is that they are often on the losing end and have been for quite some time.

I'm sorry, I was being opaque. I didn't mean that the courts "wrote" legislation in a literal sense, i meant; the courts take extreme liberties with the constitution which allow them to impose policy along ideological fault lines. If the constitution couldn't be easily amended i would agree with you, but because the legislative branch possesses the capacity to easily modify it's stipulations the power of the court should be strictly limited to literal interpretation. I oppose activism because the application of subjectivity to the constitution may be used to advance non-national interests, as the people's voice goes unheard. (slippery slope too)

Ah, but the ability to amend the Constitution does nothing but empower the Legislation and restrict the Judicial does it not? If the people want option A, but the Supreme Court says no, that is hardly the end of it. Instead of accepting the Court's decision Congress can they turn around and amend the constitution to make Option A the law of the land regardless of what the Court thinks. Now assuming this really is the peoples' will then our Republican system has triumphed by Congress checking the Judicial in the most direct way possible; editing their Bible. However if Option A was not the peoples' will then the Legislators who voted for it will then be voted out and the new people will Amend the Constitution once again and ditch it.

Shock and Awe:

vonmanstein:

Shock and Awe:

You seem to be misunderstanding exactly what the Supreme Court can and has done. If you look at the history of supreme court cases they have never done anything more then uphold or strike laws; they have never done more. Not that I have seen anyway. The court does not have the ability to bring anything to the table, they can only react to laws when they are brought before them. In addition to this if Congress or any other legislative body (whichever is applicable) can simply turn around and amend what the court said was unconstitutional and do it again. This happened with the text book example of Dred Scott v. Sandford. This case was annulled after the passing of the 13th and 14th amendment. Legislation checked judicial. In the case of Gay Marriage specifically Congress has tried before the make a Amendment to outlaw it which would specifically check all the courts on the issue. However they failed because the Legislators elected by the people, for the people, and of the people said no. The system worked.

I understand what you are saying, but I do not believe it is the case. (Law pun; HA!) The checks and balances have been working. The only reason in my mind that the political right often complains of judicial activism is that they are often on the losing end and have been for quite some time.

I'm sorry, I was being opaque. I didn't mean that the courts "wrote" legislation in a literal sense, i meant; the courts take extreme liberties with the constitution which allow them to impose policy along ideological fault lines. If the constitution couldn't be easily amended i would agree with you, but because the legislative branch possesses the capacity to easily modify it's stipulations the power of the court should be strictly limited to literal interpretation. I oppose activism because the application of subjectivity to the constitution may be used to advance non-national interests, as the people's voice goes unheard. (slippery slope too)

Ah, but the ability to amend the Constitution does nothing but empower the Legislation and restrict the Judicial does it not? If the people want option A, but the Supreme Court says no, that is hardly the end of it. Instead of accepting the Court's decision Congress can they turn around and amend the constitution to make Option A the law of the land regardless of what the Court thinks. Now assuming this really is the peoples' will then our Republican system has triumphed by Congress checking the Judicial in the most direct way possible; editing their Bible. However if Option A was not the peoples' will then the Legislators who voted for it will then be voted out and the new people will Amend the Constitution once again and ditch it.

errrr.....what are you trying to say? This isn't really an argument, kinda more of a short description of how the government works.

vonmanstein:

Shock and Awe:

Ah, but the ability to amend the Constitution does nothing but empower the Legislation and restrict the Judicial does it not? If the people want option A, but the Supreme Court says no, that is hardly the end of it. Instead of accepting the Court's decision Congress can they turn around and amend the constitution to make Option A the law of the land regardless of what the Court thinks. Now assuming this really is the peoples' will then our Republican system has triumphed by Congress checking the Judicial in the most direct way possible; editing their Bible. However if Option A was not the peoples' will then the Legislators who voted for it will then be voted out and the new people will Amend the Constitution once again and ditch it.

errrr.....what are you trying to say? This isn't really an argument, kinda more of a short description of how the government works.

Yes, because it works as designed. The Judicial cannot shut down the Legislative Branch regardless of what it does. The system is designed for the Judicial to be the non-democratic element that makes sure Law runs the country, not just the majority. The only way to change it is for a vast majority of the country's legislatures to approve it. This exactly how it should be. It takes much more then a majority's whim or a political notion to change something important.

Shock and Awe:

vonmanstein:

Shock and Awe:

Ah, but the ability to amend the Constitution does nothing but empower the Legislation and restrict the Judicial does it not? If the people want option A, but the Supreme Court says no, that is hardly the end of it. Instead of accepting the Court's decision Congress can they turn around and amend the constitution to make Option A the law of the land regardless of what the Court thinks. Now assuming this really is the peoples' will then our Republican system has triumphed by Congress checking the Judicial in the most direct way possible; editing their Bible. However if Option A was not the peoples' will then the Legislators who voted for it will then be voted out and the new people will Amend the Constitution once again and ditch it.

errrr.....what are you trying to say? This isn't really an argument, kinda more of a short description of how the government works.

Yes, because it works as designed. The Judicial cannot shut down the Legislative Branch regardless of what it does. The system is designed for the Judicial to be the non-democratic element that makes sure Law runs the country, not just the majority. The only way to change it is for a vast majority of the country's legislatures to approve it. This exactly how it should be. It takes much more then a majority's whim or a political notion to change something important.

No, I said this is how it works, I did not recognize it as functional. Again, I stress the figurative nature of my language. I do not believe that the courts have the power to eclipse or dilute the congress or it's power. I did assert, however, that activism results in unneeded, unnecessary, and undemocratic judicial oversight, as the interpretations of the judicial branch may conflict with the electoral consensus of the people, but not by a margin sufficient to compel the legislative branch to consider modifying the constitution, besides the court, using it's power of liberal "interpretation" may still find a way to impose it's political convictions on the american people. The current system of activism is broken, from top to bottom.

Fisher321:
Secular Reasons?

Because its downright disgusting. A man sodomizing another man is absolutely horrifying to me.

That's not a reason. You're just grossed out by gay sex. That's understandable, you're not attracted to other men, its still not a reason that to ban gay marriage, especially since they will still have sex, married or not.

Fisher321:
Plus I will refuse to take another man seriously if they willingly have sex with a man.

Again, not a reason to ban gay marriage, as gays will still have sex prior to marriage. It does however prove that you are discriminatory against gays and would likely get you fired from your place of hire if you spouted this in public.

Fisher321:

Inb4 I'm a bigoted Christian
Inb4 We should outlaw all other disgusting things
Inb4 I'm a bigoted Christian
Inb4 Lesbian argument
Inb4 Some other reason why I'm stupid and Ignorant

Your view has nothing to do with religion, but its still a weak argument because sex is not confined to marriage and your argument is not strong enough to support the fact that gay couples are denied several rights and benefits that married straight couples are entitled to.

Fisher321:
I'm sure I will get flamed hardcore for this but I'm standing by my values and morals. Even if I wasn't a Christian I would see this as downright disgusting.

Inb4 I'm a stupid Christian

Except you're not being moral in your argument. You're claim that because its something you find disgusting, it does not mean that it is immoral. You're not filming their sex. What happens in their bedroom, stays in their goddamn bedroom. Its not like gays will kidnap you and force you to have sex with a guy.

In short, you're not a stupid Christian, but you don't have the right to tell others that they cannot collect certain benefits and rights just because of what they do in the privacy of their own home. Jesus Christ man, Sodomy laws are unconstitutional for a reason.

vonmanstein:

TKretts3:

vonmanstein:

You erroneously assume that morality is objective.

I don't care much for those silly theories that go around yelling that everyone is right in their own way.

You erroneously assume that's the insinuation. I simply assert that your conclusion is conjecture, and it is.

It's not, and you can quit with the courtroom talk, you're not the only one who took a few Law classes.

vonmanstein:

If the constitution couldn't be easily amended....

Let me stop you right there. The constituion is not easily amended. Rather, it takes a lot of lobbying, time and petitioning to get any hope of passing an amendment. Its estimated that 200 proposals are submitted in each term of Congress. In the last 200 years, only 33 proposals have recieved enough votes to be presented to the states (They need 2/3rds of Congress to agree, or, about 353+ votes) and of those 33, only 27 were ratified. Given our current split in idealogies in both the congress and across the states, its all but impossible to pass an amendment.

So no, IT IS NOT SIMPLE TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION DAMNIT!

TKretts3:

vonmanstein:

TKretts3:

I don't care much for those silly theories that go around yelling that everyone is right in their own way.

You erroneously assume that's the insinuation. I simply assert that your conclusion is conjecture, and it is.

It's not, and you can quit with the courtroom talk, you're not the only one who took a few Law classes.

Actually, i have not taken a single law class, but i believe stylistic and precise diction is one of the keys to a successful argument, so..........

I actually prefer math and economics classes btw, though i still don't have a major........

maddawg IAJI:

vonmanstein:

If the constitution couldn't be easily amended....

Let me stop you right there. The constituion is not easily amended. Rather, it takes a lot of lobbying, time and petitioning to get any hope of passing an amendment. Its estimated that 200 proposals are submitted in each term of Congress. In the last 200 years, only 33 proposals have recieved enough votes to be presented to the states (They need 2/3rds of Congress to agree, or, about 353+ votes) and of those 33, only 27 were ratified. Given our current split in idealogies in both the congress and across the states, its all but impossible to pass an amendment.

So no, IT IS NOT SIMPLE TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION DAMNIT!

Yes, you are right. That fact actually reinforces the argument I was making when I said it though.

vonmanstein:

maddawg IAJI:

vonmanstein:

If the constitution couldn't be easily amended....

Let me stop you right there. The constituion is not easily amended. Rather, it takes a lot of lobbying, time and petitioning to get any hope of passing an amendment. Its estimated that 200 proposals are submitted in each term of Congress. In the last 200 years, only 33 proposals have recieved enough votes to be presented to the states (They need 2/3rds of Congress to agree, or, about 353+ votes) and of those 33, only 27 were ratified. Given our current split in idealogies in both the congress and across the states, its all but impossible to pass an amendment.

So no, IT IS NOT SIMPLE TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION DAMNIT!

Yes, you are right. That fact actually reinforces the argument I was making when I said it though.

No it doesn't. You said, and I quote "If the constitution was not so easy to amend, I would agree with you." The Constitution is not easy to amend. Ergo, you agree with the person you are arguing with. Argument goes to Shock and Awe. You admitted that you would side with him if stipulation X occurred. Said stipulation has occurred.

Assassin Xaero:
I'm not sure the exact specifics on it, but pretty sure it was along the lines of "I am in debt to you this amount, so I will work for you (be your slave) until my debt is payed off."

Exodus 21:20-21!
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.

That is the specifics. Pure evil slavery in honest terms.

kurlkurry:
This one also bothers me. I have heard that allowing gay marriage will lead us down the path to a man marrying his dog, or a child, or some other such nonsense. To me, this argument holds absolutely no water at all. With regards to gay marriage, we are discussing the union of two CONSENTING ADULTS. There is an entire world of difference between that and anything being suggested as coming to follow. (With the exception of polygamy, which, In my opinion should also be legal. Again, consenting ADULTS making a conscious life decision which should be respected.) This is one issue where attempting to justify this argument will get you nowhere with me, so don't even try.

Uszi:
Now you've done it. This thread is now slated to be derailed into a discussion of bestiality. It always happens here. It is the way of things.
In all seriousness though, with this objection, the simplest reply is that gay marriage has nothing to do with any other form of marriage. Polygamy, marrying animals or inanimate objects are each their own, separate issues and should be discussed individually on their own merits. There are no flood gates.
I mean, that puts the onus on them to explain why they think that gay marriage and polygamy or bestiality or anything else are essentially the same, and the explanation usually will kick back to your first few objections, i.e. "The bible says its wrong," or, "It will destroy the sanctity of marriage!"
To which there are already fantastic rebuttals.

When the great sexual revolution was taking place, people also voiced concerns about the future of sexual practices. There were fears that if promiscuity and divorce were condoned, then it would lead to a society of sexual hedonism, where all manner of devations from the heterosexual norm would be acceptable - it would go from traditional marital relations to promiscuous relations to homosexual relations to polygamous, to incestuous etc.

Looking at the world today, I must say that the conservatives were for the most part right. Promiscuity, divorces, unwanted pregnancies etc have skyrocketed, the spread of STD's is out of control etc. The very fact that we are discussing the morality of homosexuality today shows that the slippery slope argument is valid and working.

What people fail to see that condoning gay marriage has concrete consequences. When we are talking about gay relations, we are talking about a sexual practice that deviates from the heterosexual norm. So a follow-up question must be asked:
Can we justly discriminate in favor of some deviations and against others? No. If we tolerate deviations from reasonable sexual standards, then we will fairly have to tolerate other deviations from reasonable sexual standards because all of the different kinds of deviates will demand consistency from us and nondiscriminatory equal treatment.

Therefore, if liberals get to redefine the definition of marriage to suit their supported demographic, why can't other groups do so as well? Why are there no talks about legalizing incestuous relationships (like father and daughter relations) which can also take place between consenting adults, making them eligible for marriage? Why can't a necrophiliac, who legally obtained a dead body, marry it? Etc etc.

This is a question of intellectual honesty and logical consistency. None of the pro-gay marriage advocates are making a case for incest for example, even though the arguments are very much the same.

kurlkurry:
This one also bothers me. I have heard that allowing gay marriage will lead us down the path to a man marrying his dog, or a child, or some other such nonsense. To me, this argument holds absolutely no water at all. With regards to gay marriage, we are discussing the union of two CONSENTING ADULTS. There is an entire world of difference between that and anything being suggested as coming to follow. (With the exception of polygamy, which, In my opinion should also be legal. Again, consenting ADULTS making a conscious life decision which should be respected.) This is one issue where attempting to justify this argument will get you nowhere with me, so don't even try.

Uszi:
Now you've done it. This thread is now slated to be derailed into a discussion of bestiality. It always happens here. It is the way of things.
In all seriousness though, with this objection, the simplest reply is that gay marriage has nothing to do with any other form of marriage. Polygamy, marrying animals or inanimate objects are each their own, separate issues and should be discussed individually on their own merits. There are no flood gates.
I mean, that puts the onus on them to explain why they think that gay marriage and polygamy or bestiality or anything else are essentially the same, and the explanation usually will kick back to your first few objections, i.e. "The bible says its wrong," or, "It will destroy the sanctity of marriage!"
To which there are already fantastic rebuttals.

When the great sexual revolution was taking place, people also voiced concerns about the future of sexual practices. There were fears that if promiscuity and divorce were condoned, then it would lead to a society of sexual hedonism, where all manner of deviations from the heterosexual norm would be acceptable - it would go from traditional marital relations to promiscuous relations to homosexual relations to polygamous, to incestuous etc.

Looking at the world today, I must say that the conservatives were for the most part right. Promiscuity, divorces, unwanted pregnancies etc have skyrocketed, the spread of STD's is out of control etc. The very fact that we are discussing the morality of homosexuality today shows that the slippery slope argument is valid and working.

What people fail to see is that condoning gay marriage has concrete consequences. When we are talking about gay relations, we are talking about a sexual practice that deviates from the heterosexual norm. So a follow-up question must be asked:
Can we justly discriminate in favor of some deviations and against others? No. If we tolerate deviations from reasonable sexual standards, then we will fairly have to tolerate other deviations from reasonable sexual standards because all of the different kinds of deviates will demand consistency from us and nondiscriminatory equal treatment.

Therefore, if liberals get to redefine the definition of marriage to suit their supported demographic, why can't other groups do so as well? Why are there no talks about legalizing incestuous relationships (like father and daughter relations) which can also take place between consenting adults, making them eligible for marriage? Why can't a necrophiliac, who legally obtained a dead body, marry it? Etc etc.

This is a question of intellectual honesty and logical consistency. None of the pro-gay marriage advocates are making a case for incest for example, even though the arguments are very much the same. More advocates of different deviations will show up and we can't dismiss them without being hypocrites.

al4674:
Stuff

Eh...I'm a conservative (Admittedly I lean left on most social issues, but whatevs), but I don't really agree.

It's not like homosexuality is a brand new thing. It's been around for at least thousands of years. The Greeks had homosexual relationships, as did the Spartans, and even Plato equated acceptance of homosexuality with democracy.

But before getting into any of that, I have to explain this one very important concept; there is no such thing as right and wrong. They are entirely subjective words, and therefore they have no concrete meaning. Currently, most of the developed world consider pedophilia to be on par with murder. Girls marrying 40 year old men as young as 11-14 and bearing children was considered completely normal as early as a few hundred years ago. In another two hundred years, it might even see a resurgence; who knows?

Anywho, the world works like the tide. Certain cultural concepts and morals ebb and flow. For example, the ancient Egyptians were into some pretty freaky shit. Acts and positions that will literally cause physical damage to most people if done today. Ancient Romans were famous world-wide for their public orgies. Maybe in the near future, incest, homosexuality, and some other 'depraved' notions will be accepted. And even further into the future, they'll become taboo and banned once again. Ad infinitum. (Well, maybe not incest. That's pretty much always been a taboo thing for non-royalty.)

Just out of interest, are there any reasons for opposing homosexuality that wouldn't be branded "bigoted" or "stupid" by the majority here?

I'm pro-equality myself but poor ol' Fisher321 seems to have put himself in an unwinnable situation. People are lining up to tell him that his subjective opinion is wrong and their subjective opinions are correct, because this is the Escapist and we're super-liberal here and we've defined gay rights as something you must support Or You're A Bigot.(TM)

Basically, we've created a thread where there is only one defensible position, and that strikes me as intellectually rather "off".

vonmanstein:

ach.... So easily we forget history.

Humanism(academic definition) is a renaissance era philosophy which is preceded by the development of classical attic democracy, and if the successor cannot influence the predecessor in a historical sense then democracy as it was created cannot contain a humanist influences.

democracy in a more traditional sense is a simple system of power in the hands of the majority. MODERN liberal democracy has come to embrace humanism, but the notion that humanism and "human rights" are inherent in democracy is fallacious. No democracy has ever embraced humanism, and i doubt any ever shall because humanism is a conceptual construct and runs perpendicular to human nature and general will. Humanism is an ideal which liberals propound, but it isn't integral to democracy and never will be.

tldr: one can support democracy and freedom without supporting humanism, as humanism isn't inherent in democracy or freedom.

I haven't forgotten, I am just not creating false equivalencies or historical similarities where there are none. The Hellenistic form of democracy (or the form practiced by the Roman Republic) have very little in common with the modern form of democracy. Both the greek and roman democracies had their run and were extinguished, either de facto or de jure, before the first century AD. Modern democracy draws its' roots from the renaissance era philosophy of humanism as the next logical step from equality is equal rights to affect the course of the nation. This is especially obvious if you consider that the US Constitution is written from a clearly humanistic viewpoint (and all the founding fathers considered themselves humanists) and that the first modern democracy in Europe was the French Republic created in the wake of the French Revolution. Both of which served as examples and inspiration for later European democracies.

While democracy at is' most basic might not require humanism, it is safe to say that modern, western democracy is deeply ingrained in humanistic ideals. You can deny it all you like and try to draw upon false historical equivalencies, but in doing so you are also denying some of the most basic facts about modern history. That's even before we get into the obvious problem that "freedom" isn't "freedom" if it only applies to certain sections of the population, in which case we are getting close to fascism or feudalism.

Batou667:
Just out of interest, are there any reasons for opposing homosexuality that wouldn't be branded "bigoted" or "stupid" by the majority here?

Well, no. Since, you know, opposition to homosexuality is intrinsically bigoted.

Batou667:
I'm pro-equality myself but poor ol' Fisher321 seems to have put himself in an unwinnable situation. People are lining up to tell him that his subjective opinion is wrong and their subjective opinions are correct, because this is the Escapist and we're super-liberal here and we've defined gay rights as something you must support Or You're A Bigot.(TM)

The kid didn't give any actual reasons. He essentially said he just doesn't like men who like other men.

Xan Krieger:

SonicWaffle:

Xan Krieger:
Side note: This forum really needs more republicans.

You say that as if it would change anything. One thing I rather like about the community here is that regardless of age, gender, race, sexuality or political leanings, we're capable of having knock-down bare-knuckle rows about anything if we put our minds to it ;-)

My problem is when someone with a conservative or republican point of view says anything they get 100 liberals on their case about it. When someone says something with a liberal point of view everyone supports it. This forum is very unbalanced.

Thing is, what with this website having a high rate of American users, when right wingers do appear then they tend to conform to the American notions of conservatism. To those of us not living in the US, American conservatives appear to be disgracefully far to the right, particularly on social issues, so people will argue with them because while other Americans may see them as ordinary Republicans, non-Americans see them as extremists.

Batou667:
Basically, we've created a thread where there is only one defensible position, and that strikes me as intellectually rather "off".

Why?

Lots of questions have simple answers. You could as well ask if there is any real rational evidence that the moon landing was faked, or that Obama is a commie muslim african jewish space lizard. You'd get much the same answer for that, and nobody would be surprised.

Kopikatsu:
Conservatives are just that. They want things to stay as they are.

That's a meaning of the word, yes. However, politically, it has come to encompass several other meanings, one of which (in the Western world, at least) is favouring smaller government and less state interference into the rights of the indivual.

Kopikatsu:
Gay marriage and abortion weren't a thing until recently, so it's a conservative notion to reject them while progressives push for change.

Except that, in the US particularly, the conservative movement is now so inextricably linked with the religious right that the reasons given for opposition to these things are usually religious in nature, rather than opposing change out of some desire to resist any and all change.

Kopikatsu:
I honestly have no idea where the idea of conservative = big government and progressive = freedom came from.

The point is that many conservatives are hypocritical about the matter; they want the government to stay out of their business when it comes to health care or firearms, but when the issue is gay rights or abortion or keeping religion out of state affairs, they're all for it.

They oppose government interference, except when that interference aligns with their own views.

vonmanstein:
Now that is quite an inference, unfortunately you are mistaken. When I spoke of gay marriage as not being objectively moral i didn't imply that it was immoral, simply amoral. I support democracy and freedom of choice as this model more closely resembles the natural order, if many choose to deny the freedom of choice to some, that's humanity not immorality.

Ah. So, mob rule then? Considering how easily many people are manipulated by blatant lies from the right-wing media (remember the Ground Zero Mosque? Obama's birth certificate? Death panels?), you'll have to forgive me but I find the idea simply terrifying.

Simple one-man-one-vote democracy is not enough, not in the real world. There must be structures to support it which prevent it being used for evil.

vonmanstein:
You can't continue to argue that it is moral without presenting an appropriate moral code against which it can be judged. Until you do that your assertions remain baseless conjecture.

How about the moral code which underpins our society, namely that all are equal in the eyes of the law regardless of how many people disagree?

Batou667:
Just out of interest, are there any reasons for opposing homosexuality that wouldn't be branded "bigoted" or "stupid" by the majority here?

Probably not, because I personally find that notion that you can "oppose homosexuality" absolutely retarded to begin with.

vonmanstein:

Shock and Awe:

vonmanstein:

errrr.....what are you trying to say? This isn't really an argument, kinda more of a short description of how the government works.

Yes, because it works as designed. The Judicial cannot shut down the Legislative Branch regardless of what it does. The system is designed for the Judicial to be the non-democratic element that makes sure Law runs the country, not just the majority. The only way to change it is for a vast majority of the country's legislatures to approve it. This exactly how it should be. It takes much more then a majority's whim or a political notion to change something important.

No, I said this is how it works, I did not recognize it as functional. Again, I stress the figurative nature of my language. I do not believe that the courts have the power to eclipse or dilute the congress or it's power. I did assert, however, that activism results in unneeded, unnecessary, and undemocratic judicial oversight, as the interpretations of the judicial branch may conflict with the electoral consensus of the people, but not by a margin sufficient to compel the legislative branch to consider modifying the constitution, besides the court, using it's power of liberal "interpretation" may still find a way to impose it's political convictions on the american people. The current system of activism is broken, from top to bottom.

The thing is though, that Judges really don't do all that much. The whole basis of their "activism" is that they sometimes strike down laws that they believe conflict with the Constitution. This is totally within their power and they have been doing it for hundreds of years. Judicial Review has been institutionalized since the early 19th century after Marvbury v Madison. Can Judicial Oversight be undemocratic? Yes, thats the entire idea. Its supposed to be undemocratic because doing everything by majority rule tends to bite people in the ass. If something is within that margin to be a majority, yet not enough to make an amendment then it was blocked by something that is there on purpose. The Law and Courts exist to dropkick Democracy in the chest because the US is supposed to be ruled by Law.

thaluikhain:

Batou667:
Basically, we've created a thread where there is only one defensible position, and that strikes me as intellectually rather "off".

Why?

Lots of questions have simple answers. You could as well ask if there is any real rational evidence that the moon landing was faked, or that Obama is a commie muslim african jewish space lizard. You'd get much the same answer for that, and nobody would be surprised.

In fairness, nobody (or at least, not on the same level - I imagine if it is happening it's a petition started in a basement and signed by one person) is attempting to legislate acceptance of Obama's commiemuslimnaziatheist status or trying to get schools to teach the moon landings as fake. There's an undercurrent of backlash against the gay issue because people feel their views are under attack, and when a person's views are attacked that tends to make them more aggressive in defending them.

There may be only one simple answer, but the more we insist our version is true the harder people are going to fight back.

SonicWaffle:
In fairness, nobody (or at least, not on the same level - I imagine if it is happening it's a petition started in a basement and signed by one person) is attempting to legislate acceptance of Obama's commiemuslimnaziatheist status or trying to get schools to teach the moon landings as fake. There's an undercurrent of backlash against the gay issue because people feel their views are under attack, and when a person's views are attacked that tends to make them more aggressive in defending them.

There may be only one simple answer, but the more we insist our version is true the harder people are going to fight back.

I suppose so. Evolution and abortion seem to have gotten more controversial, not less, in many places.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked