Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
It appears that you are using ad block :'(
Hey, we get it. However this website is run by and for the community... and it needs ads in order to keep running.
Please disable your adblock on Smashboards, or go premium to hide all advertisements and this notice. Alternatively, this ad may have just failed to load. Woops!
[DWYP1.1] - McCloud vs. Marthmaster - Gay Marriage
This a thread for Debate With Your Power. If your screen name is not McCloud vs. Marthmaster (Or me, for this first post) then you are to not post in this thread.
You two are debating whether it is ok for homosexual couples to get married. This debate will start at midnight and will go for 72 hours. (Pacific Standard Time)
McCloud will start with the first argument, Marthmaster will then give a rebuke and the debating will ensue. Keep the first post rather broad and all ecompassing so that there is a basis for the debate.
[DWYP1.1] - cF=) vs. kishprime - Prayer in public schools
This a thread for Debate With Your Power. If your screen name is not cF=) or kishprime (Or me, for this first post) then you are to not post in this thread.
You two are debating whether prayer should be allowed in public schools, mostly for a teacher to have prayer be said before class. This debate will start at midnight and will go for 72 hours. (Pacific Standard Time)
kishprime will start with the first argument, cF=) will then give a rebuke and the debating will ensue. Keep the first post rather broad and all ecompassing so that there is a basis for the debate.
[DWYP1.1] - JAKETHIRTEEN vs. Hamsterpie - Should the US have open borders?
This a thread for Debate With Your Power. If your screen name is not JAKETHIRTEEN or Hamsterpie (Or me, for this first post) then you are to not post in this thread.
You two are debating whether the US borders should be open to everyone. This debate will start at midnight and will go for 72 hours. (Pacific Standard Time)
Hamsterpie will start with the first argument, JAKETHIRTEEN will then give a rebuke and the debating will ensue. Keep the first post rather broad and all ecompassing so that there is a basis for the debate.
Actually, this is an incorrect statement. I'm arguing that neither prevalent political party in the United States is the one we need, and have not changed my position. If there has been a mixup, I'd be glad to help sort it out, however, I doubt that a theoretical political party is currently in office. Should I still make the opening statement?
In the interest of making this debate interesting, I'll keep this opening broad:
America's federal government currently has, for all intents and purposes, two parties that can be elected. It has become clear that a third-party candidate does not have a snowball's chance in hell at getting elected to any office of great import in our government, which is not only common knowledge, but a real shame, because that's exactly what we need right now. But I won't get into my views on bi-partisan politics. For now, let's focus on the two options we do have, and why they aren't working.
First off, the Democrats, a party that's technically been around since the 1790s (if you count Jefferson's party from which they evolved.) Historically, they've had a few problems, such as being the slaveowner's best friend just before the Civil War, have done some good things as well. National heroes have come out of them, such as Franklin Delanor Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy. The civil rights movement was supported by the Democrats in the 60s, in stark contrast to their actions and voter base a hundred or so years prior. However, they also were the ones to pass the sedition act, under president Wilson, in 1918, a clear violation of the first Amendment. Now there are a large number of issues over which there is much debate, and the Republican party is very good at taking very solid, unified stances (to the right) on any of said issues. The democrats, however, remain taking up an incredibly wide spectrum of political ideologies, ranging from extremely moderate conservatives to outright liberals. This disparity seems to come from efforts to gain more votes from an equally wide range of voters, and makes them come off as indecisive, or "wishy-washy," as the Republicans were all too eager to point out in the presidential election of 2004. They have a difficult time opposing the Republicans because of this, which makes it much easier for the conservatives to get laws passed, since the GOP is a lot less wide-spread in their agenda. Except on the off-chance that their candidate for senator, or president, or whatever, happens to appeal to a small section of their target demographic specifically, it seems like the only reason the Democrats get voted for anymore is to oppose the Republicans.
Which brings me to the only party I dislike more than the Democrats, and I'm sure my opponent will agree on this one: The Republicans. As far as presidents go, they started out strong with Abraham Lincoln as their first candidate to be elected to that office, and, while gaining almost all of the black vote, as well as a lot of the abolitionists of the time. Two candidates later, they have Rutherford B. Hayes, who loses the popular vote, and is alleged by many to have rigged the vote in three states, including Florida (Sound familiar?), and then immediately ends the comparitively racially-utopian era of reconstruction in the interests of big business. Fast-forward to today, and the Republicans have supported at least two seemingly pointless wars (Vietnam and Iraq) for which public opinion has been incredibly divided, and are also pushing social issues such as Gay Marriage, Abortion, and Stem Cells, all of which they thoroughly oppose, the reason for which varies between strong moral convictions and attempts to exploit strong moral convictions for a huge voter base in the religious right, a fairly prevalent group in the US. Either way, they've managed to go on a wild goose chase in Iraq with no exit strategy, bring back the deficit, scare the hell out of the American people, and completely trash the bill of rights with the USA PATRIOT Act (As well as other, later decisions). From President Bush's latest state of the union address (clarifying that we were winning the war on terrorism, that we planned to eliminate the deficit by cutting taxes and starting a slew of new, expensive programs), and the nigh-unanimous support from those republicans in attendance, this is not changing anytime soon. Clearly not our best choice.
So we have a crazy, out-of-control right-wing party, which - being so ethically bankrupt but "morally" in line with so many voters - has a great deal of power, and since there are precious few internal disagreements about policy on any given issue, can pass laws without much effort, laws which are causing our country a great deal of problems - social, financial, and foreign-policy related - and will probably cause more to come. On the opposing side, we have a party with a wild disparity in political standpoints - some of which agree with the GOP - who are effectively incapable of weilding the voting power of their opposition, nor the internal consensus. I submit that they are voted for mainly because they are not the Republicans, and because there is no third option.
It is painfully obvious that neither of these parties will give the country what they need right now.
As far as presidents go, they started out strong with Abraham Lincoln as their first candidate to be elected to that office, and, while gaining almost all of the black vote, as well as a lot of the abolitionists of the time.
As far as presidents go, they started out strong with Abraham Lincoln as their first candidate to be elected to that office, and, as such, they gained almost all of the black vote, as well as a lot of the abolitionists of the time, after the Emancipation Proclamation.
In the US, there are alot of children waited to be adopted. Older children and children with special needs are especially hard to place. Children who fit this category are now in foster homes with parents of the same sex, who want to adopt them. It is not fair to deny them a secure permanent home.
Also, most children in the US don't even live with 2 married parents. According to the 2000 cencus, only 24% of all families were composed of a married mother and father with a kid living at home. Scientific studies have shown that children that grow up with one or two(being gay or lesbian) parents are emotionally and socially just as well as children whose parents are heterosexual.
Other studies have shown that children are more influenced by their interaction with their parents than by their sexual orientation. With this in mind, the American Association of Pediatrics support gay and lesbian parents to adopt children.
There is no reason why gay or lesbian couples should be denied adopting children. It would only hurt the children who are waiting to be adopted and the parents who are willing to love and take care of these children.
With that said, I think that same sex adoption should be possible.
Was the U.S. right to go into Iraq? This question in itself is flawed, due to so many encompasing variables, but I will do my best to answer it. I am against the "war in Iraq" largely because it was based off of false pretenses. WMD's were not found, the whole situation was basically thrown at the American public as something that was just going to happen because it needed to be. The government gave us very little information on why this was happening. And right now, it seems like Bush is holding out this so called war to pass it off to the next president. This is because he cannot do his job and make decisions. He hides behind his office, lets them make the decisions, then trys dumb down what's going on and tell the people of America what is happening. "In other words", I am against this war. I am against ever going into it.
"Oh, but we know so little, we don't know what is really going on over there and we should trust our government to do what is right." Things like this truely irk me. Bush and his other members of the office obviously are waaayyy in over their heads and can't admit that. They are overwhelmed by their idiotic mistakes and can't reveal that they were wrong. They have never appologized for themselves being WRONG. The main reason for going over there- wrong. But, they must keep their composure and they cannot seem like the ones who made the mistake. They're the government right?
"We must trust him, stop making fun of our president, that is unconstitutional!" This is possibly the WORST thing I have ever heard. It is used much less now, but a couple years ago, this was all that was uttered from the mouths of his supporters. No. We as AMERICANS have the right to critisize our president. When half of the world recognizes America and one giant redneck ignorant pile, we are obviously doing something wrong. We have the right to critiseze when thousands are dying and being wounded over in Iraq. There are many more than we know, but 3,000 itself should slap the guy in the face. Wake up, this is not a "war" we can win, this is an inner struggle with Iraq, that we are making worse, and we are losing so much more than this so called war.
For my closing comments, I will say this. Iraq is a country we invaded (on false terms). Yippee, we caught Saddam....that's great. He's bad, and needed to be taken down, but not in the way that we have done. Also, as soon as we caught Saddam, and Mission Accomplished was declared, we should have began to leave. No hang around and keep this thing going without any good enough reason to disable the cons. This "war" is one big mess and we are losing so much for it. Respect, power, LIVES. Please, somebody, give me a good reason to stay. I will probably find fault with it, but please, if you believe you can dissuade me, please try.
(hehe, that last line was not meant to be a personall strike Delphiki )
Oh, erm...I thought we were going later, and that the topic was slightly different. Oh well.
Prayer is among the least disturbing practice of a religion. It is the expression, whether private or public, of a person's communication with their god. While it may be true on rare occasions that prayer is used to cloak personal attacks, the vast majority of prayer is requesting divine intervention and blessing. Prayer is not designed to harm but to help and heal. Even with all of these qualities, prayer still manages to be one of the most controversal religious topics in the country, coming to the Supreme Court on multiple occasions.
The subject of the constitutional controversy centers around the "Establishment clause," that is, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Therefore, a teacher-led prayer at the start of class has become a legal sticky point, but does it really violate the Establishment Clause to pray a simple prayer of blessing upon the students? What if it is made clear that the teacher is expressing his own personal beliefs, and is praying to lift up the individuals in the classroom? This kind of prayer does not mandate that everyone participate, and each is free to his own interpretation of that prayer. It is personal expression, and something that is done in love for the students that are being taught.
Furthermore, all the Establishment Clause specifically states is that the state shall not pass laws sponsoring a national religion. While some may state that public prayer violates their rights because it is offensive, the Constitution never guarantees the right to be unoffended. The student still has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Prayer is intended for the good of those who are being prayed for.
The argument can also be made that school prayer can only bring good to the school, and that banning it removes this potential good. At best, this good is realized, and the god blesses the classroom. At worst their God does not exist, but yet the students still see the teacher lifting them up and caring for them, which has far more impact on classroom learning than almost anything else.
We live in a democracy, where it is essential that every citizen espouse their beliefs. The nation is built on the diversity of opinion in this country. By removing prayer from the classroom, important opportunities for the tempering of this diversity are being removed. As our country continues to silence any opportunity for dissent among students and faculty by removing content that may be "offensive," are we not actually removing a forum for students to discuss and understand why they think the way they do on moral and social issues?
For these reasons, I believe that teacher-led prayer is constitutional.
"Love is a Battlefield," Pat Benatar told us in 1983. Yet little did we know then what kind of fight we would be in today for the right to express that love. For now this nation has attempted to ban the right of homosexuals to marry, violating its citizens their unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and violating the separation of church and state by using a religiously framed definition of marriage. In order to regain legitimacy as an institution by the people and for the people, the United States Federal Government should recognize homosexuals as equal citizens under the law, rather than valuing flawed science, misquoted passages from religious sources, and unwarranted misconceptions.
The first argument against homosexuality draws on conclusions from the world around us: nature. Most people assume that humans are the only species to engage in sexual activities for pleasure in addition to reproduction, and their 'logical' conclusion would be that would mean there is no such thing as homosexuality in animals, and it is not 'natural' in humans. However, a simple Google search or a trip to your local library disputes and disproves both of those 'conclusions'. New York's Central Park Zoo's famous 'gay penguins', Roy and Silo, are prime examples of this 'phenomenon' that proves homosexuality is found in nature. They ignore females, have sex on a regular basis, built a nest together, and even tried to incubate a rock until researchers gave them an egg to hatch; they performed all duties required of penguin parents, until the baby Tango was born, which they raised until she was ready to go out and face the big penguin world. Researchers in Japan have also found that Roy and Silo are not alone, as they have found other instances where penguins and dolphins engage in homosexual sex (The New York Times). In his book, Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity, Bruce Bagemihl explains the nature of scientists to disregard the truth - homosexuality is a natural occurrence, and possibly nature's response to overpopulation. " Astounding as it sounds, a number of scientists have actually argued that when a female Bonobo [a species of primates] wraps her legs around another female ... while emitting screams of enjoyment, this is actually "greeting" behavior, or "appeasement" behavior ... almost anything, it seems, besides pleasurable sexual behavior" he writes. This conveys the modern scientist's attitude towards homosexuality, a reflection of a society built on intolerance under the premise of equality. These flawed theories also make up the belief that homosexuality is a choice: Ask a heterosexual if their sexual preference was a "choice" and you will most likely get laughed at. Ask a homosexual if their sexuality was "chosen and he will ask you why he would "choose" a life of discrimination.
The second argument against homosexuality is that it is immoral, as defined by the Bible or Torah. The most commonly cited source for this argument is Leviticus 18:22. It states that, "You shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." (KJV). The response to this argument is that firstly, it is a translation error, as the Hebrew translation of abomination is, 'to become unclean' usually referring to the health practices and some fertility rituals of the Canaanites. This, along with the other Mosaic Laws, deal with purity laws of cleanliness of the Orthodox Jewish faith, defining what is and what isn't Kosher. However, let's look at some other of these laws. Have you ever worn clothing of two different fibers (Leviticus 19:19)? Had contact with a female during her menstrual period (Leviticus 15:19-24)? Played football or touched the skin of a dead pig (Leviticus 11:6-8)? Been a male and had a haircut, especially around the temples (Leviticus 19:27)? Worn glasses or had acne (Leviticus 21:20)? Eaten shellfish (Leviticus 11:10)? If you have, you have violated the Mosaic laws, and in most cases, should be put to death, preferably by stoning. If we look at these laws from the context of an advanced, educated society, we can clearly see that these laws were made to protect the Jewish people or to show respect for G-d and do not apply to modern society. The second argument against the Leviticus laws and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah ( even Jesus admits the sin of Sodom was inhospitality, Matthew 10:5-15) as well as Ezekiel (Ezekiel 16:49-50)) is the story of David and Jonathan. David, as in that's 'my star on the flag of Israel and million's necks', David. The religious right would have you believe that the relationship between David and Jonathan, the son of King Saul, was purely one of friendship. However, on closer examination, we can conclude that their relationship was one of the original gay love stories. The chapters of Samuel tells their tale: "...the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul" (1 Samuel 18:1, KJV); "And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt." (1 Samuel 18: 3-4, KJV); "Now Saul's daughter Michal was in love with David, and when they told Saul about it, he was pleased. 'I will give her to him', he thought, 'so that she may be a snare to him and so that the hand of the Philistines may be against him'. "Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, in the twain." (1 Samuel 18: 20-21, KJV); "David got up from the south side of the stone and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with his face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept together - but David wept the most." (1 Samuel 20:41, NIV); "I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women." (2 Samuel 1:26). In close readings, and substitution of the King James Version rather than the New International Version in some more 'graphic' parts, we can see that Jonathan and David's relationship transcended the bounds of friendship and into marriage (1 Samuel 18: 20-21, KJV) and most likely sexual intercourse (1 Samuel 18: 3-4, 2 Samuel 1:26, KJV). The changes of the NIV edition are blatant examples of when modern society and the religious right have tried to impose their ideals of intolerance into the fabric of the holy texts of three faiths. The conclusion we can draw from these passages is that in Ancient Hebrew times, not only was homosexuality in itself not an issue, but neither was the love, sex, and marriage of a King with another man. How does that show upon our society in light of progress? Opponents of gay marriage have also largely ignored the fact that marriage is primarily a legal institution - a contract if you will - rather than anything that has to do with religion by nature. At the point in which marriage predates modern religions and is a universal concept in society, there exists no logical reason as to why we would attach a kind of moral qualifier on it, especially when there is a historical precedent for same sex marriages even in cultures as different as ancient China and Medieval Europe.
The third main argument against homosexuality is actually a collection of several misconceptions, mostly formed against same-sex marriages. The first is that a homosexual union will 'devalue' heterosexual unions. There is absolutely no warrant for this; conservative Christians and homophobes just say so. That's why it's one of my favorite arguments, because it's so illogical and self-serving. There's never any implication of how a same-sex union directly affects a heterosexual couple's marriage. Plus, with a divorce rate of almost 50% in the United States alone (http://www.divorcereform.org/rates.html), I'd say heterosexuals are already 'devaluing' marriage on their own. The second argument is that marriage is solely for procreation; however, wouldn't that invalidate any marriage of a couple that is unable to conceive? Other arguments include: gays want to encourage polygamy (however, wouldn't two people legally declaring their love and commitment solely for each other specifically be a rejection of polygamy? And this is just another slippery slope argument; there's no warrant as to why when you allow two men to get married you absolutely have to allow multiple partnerships), same-sex unions will break down society (Finland, France, Germany. No societal breakdowns there), and the final myth, that gays and lesbians already have equality. There is still significant discrimination in all areas of society for gays and lesbians not just in the legal recognition of their relationships, but in terms of equal legal status, such as legal guardians, inheritors, ect.
America began as the land of the free, the home of the brave: but how can we call ourselves free and brave if our citizens are not all equal and some are even afraid of their lives because of something that they have no control over? Our founding fathers, primarily Deists by nature, not Christians, lived in a time when the impacts of intolerance and injustice were apparent; they saw how faith and discrimination played into politics. How are we to guide the laws of our country today if we are blinded by the laws of our faith?
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Benjamin Franklin
Thus the plan: The United States Supreme Court should grant a writ of certiorari to Lewis v Harris to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act on the grounds that it unconstitutionally violates the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause, thereby granting same sex couples the right to marry.
I hope this wasn't too different than what you thought. I said "mostly for a teacher have a prayer be said before class" because you cannot debate whether a student or teacher can say a prayer in their mind, you can never stop them from doing this. This debate is whether prayer can be promoted by the schools themselves, like having a prayer before a class.
I thought that the debate would be on Tuesday…. But ill still give it a shot.
First of all, religion has nothing to do with modern education, because we live in the age of science, so consequently the modern myth is the myth of science, not of god. So a prayer at the beginning of a class would go against the fact that the teachings in school are all about proven information, not supposed events and messages.
School is a place where we teach mathematics, history, science and languages, things that concern everybody in our contemporary society. Even if a child has the option of not participating in a prayer, he would be discriminated by the others, set aside. If an educational institution decided to obligate teachers to lead a prayer for each different religion (in order to accommodate everybody), it would just be a waste of good class time that could be used otherwise.
It is not because a prayer is said at the beginning of class that children will learn better, that God blesses the classroom. If the teacher gives credit to God for the good grades that the children obtain, it goes against the whole point of education and studying. So theoretically, a student could just call upon his God, pray all day, and he or she would still get good grades. We should instead encourage kids to follow in class, listen to what the teacher says and to do their homework properly, all the while keeping them calm and in touch with reality.
Finally, for all those reasons I believe that a prayer should not be said at the beginning of class.
If I did not have to go to class right now I would have more to say… I won’t be updating this post so keep on debating with what I actually wrote; I’ll bring more arguments as soon as you post yours.
I thought that the debate would be on Tuesday…. But ill still give it a shot.
First of all, religion has nothing to do with modern education, because we live in the age of science, so consequently the modern myth is the myth of science, not of god. So a prayer at the beginning of a class would go against the fact that the teachings in school are all about proven information, not supposed events and messages.
School is a place where we teach mathematics, history, science and languages, things that concern everybody in our contemporary society. Even if a child has the option of not participating in a prayer, he would be discriminated by the others, set aside. If an educational institution decided to obligate teachers to lead a prayer for each different religion (in order to accommodate everybody), it would just be a waste of good class time that could be used otherwise.
It is not because a prayer is said at the beginning of class that children will learn better, that God blesses the classroom. If the teacher gives credit to God for the good grades that the children obtain, it goes against the whole point of education and studying. So theoretically, a student could just call upon his God, pray all day, and he or she would still get good grades. We should instead encourage kids to follow in class, listen to what the teacher says and to do their homework properly, all the while keeping them calm and in touch with reality.
Finally, for all those reasons I believe that a prayer should not be said at the beginning of class.
If I did not have to go to class right now I would have more to say… I won’t be updating this post so keep on debating with what I actually wrote; I’ll bring more arguments as soon as you post yours.
You are not allowed to edit your posts. I am quoting this to those judging, and kishprime can know the contents incase you decide to edit after a response which would be against the rules.
(I'm assuming I'm arguing for evolution, since I chose that)
Evolution has been attacked by Creationism on three basic premises:
1) There is not enough evidence for Evolution
2)Irreducible complexity is present in some living beings
3)Order cannot be created out of disorder
Addressing one in more detail:
So far there has been enough evidence for Evolution, the fossil record, combined with carbon dating techniques shows that in the past, there were radically different organisms compared with the present. It also shows that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old, plenty of time for evolution to have taken place. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html)
Mutation has been observed and so has natural selection. There are many well-known accounts that describe a change in color in moths to better disguise themselves in clean or polluted air.
The argument of irreducible complexity (number two) states that there are existing organisms and organs that cannot have evolved; that is, they only function with all of their parts. This would be a fine argument if not for the fact that there are no examples of it. One of the most popular (but incorrect) examples of irreducible complexity is the eye. However, evolution accounts for this development of the eye. The eye probably began as a photosensitive spot which became a light-sensitive crater which could tell where light was, and gradually transformed into the human eye. Eyes representative of all the intermediate stages can be found all over the animal kingdom, going from sea squirts which can only detect light, and cannot form an image, to birds which have vision superior to even our own.
(eye info from: Current Biology, Vol. 15, pages 1684-1689, September 20, 2005. DOI 10.1016/j.cub.2005.08.046, sorry if its hard to find)
The third is the easiest to disprove; it tries to use the second law of thermodynamics against evolution. For those who don't know, the second law states that all things tend towards entropy, or disorder. The complexity of living things now shows order that was not previously there. However, this law only applies to closed systems; the earth is gaining energy from the sun, and order CAN be created at the cost of expending energy (think to when you recycle; you use energy to move the recyclable to where the other recyclables are).
Even if evolution was flawed, believing in creationism on that basis is wrong. They are not the only hypotheses that could exist. It is basically giving up on trying to find out how complex life arose on earth. This type of logic is medieval and should not be employed in the rational mind.
"Love is a Battlefield," Pat Benatar told us in 1983. Yet little did we know then what kind of fight we would be in today for the right to express that love. For now this nation has attempted to ban the right of homosexuals to marry, violating its citizens their unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and violating the separation of church and state by using a religiously framed definition of marriage. In order to regain legitimacy as an institution by the people and for the people, the United States Federal Government should recognize homosexuals as equal citizens under the law, rather than valuing flawed science, misquoted passages from religious sources, and unwarranted misconceptions.
The first argument against homosexuality draws on conclusions from the world around us: nature. Most people assume that humans are the only species to engage in sexual activities for pleasure in addition to reproduction, and their 'logical' conclusion would be that would mean there is no such thing as homosexuality in animals, and it is not 'natural' in humans. However, a simple Google search or a trip to your local library disputes and disproves both of those 'conclusions'. New York's Central Park Zoo's famous 'gay penguins', Roy and Silo, are prime examples of this 'phenomenon' that proves homosexuality is found in nature. They ignore females, have sex on a regular basis, built a nest together, and even tried to incubate a rock until researchers gave them an egg to hatch; they performed all duties required of penguin parents, until the baby Tango was born, which they raised until she was ready to go out and face the big penguin world. Researchers in Japan have also found that Roy and Silo are not alone, as they have found other instances where penguins and dolphins engage in homosexual sex (The New York Times). In his book, Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity, Bruce Bagemihl explains the nature of scientists to disregard the truth - homosexuality is a natural occurrence, and possibly nature's response to overpopulation. " Astounding as it sounds, a number of scientists have actually argued that when a female Bonobo [a species of primates] wraps her legs around another female ... while emitting screams of enjoyment, this is actually "greeting" behavior, or "appeasement" behavior ... almost anything, it seems, besides pleasurable sexual behavior" he writes. This conveys the modern scientist's attitude towards homosexuality, a reflection of a society built on intolerance under the premise of equality. These flawed theories also make up the belief that homosexuality is a choice: Ask a heterosexual if their sexual preference was a "choice" and you will most likely get laughed at. Ask a homosexual if their sexuality was "chosen and he will ask you why he would "choose" a life of discrimination.
The second argument against homosexuality is that it is immoral, as defined by the Bible or Torah. The most commonly cited source for this argument is Leviticus 18:22. It states that, "You shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." (KJV). The response to this argument is that firstly, it is a translation error, as the Hebrew translation of abomination is, 'to become unclean' usually referring to the health practices and some fertility rituals of the Canaanites. This, along with the other Mosaic Laws, deal with purity laws of cleanliness of the Orthodox Jewish faith, defining what is and what isn't Kosher. However, let's look at some other of these laws. Have you ever worn clothing of two different fibers (Leviticus 19:19)? Had contact with a female during her menstrual period (Leviticus 15:19-24)? Played football or touched the skin of a dead pig (Leviticus 11:6-8)? Been a male and had a haircut, especially around the temples (Leviticus 19:27)? Worn glasses or had acne (Leviticus 21:20)? Eaten shellfish (Leviticus 11:10)? If you have, you have violated the Mosaic laws, and in most cases, should be put to death, preferably by stoning. If we look at these laws from the context of an advanced, educated society, we can clearly see that these laws were made to protect the Jewish people or to show respect for G-d and do not apply to modern society. The second argument against the Leviticus laws and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah ( even Jesus admits the sin of Sodom was inhospitality, Matthew 10:5-15) as well as Ezekiel (Ezekiel 16:49-50)) is the story of David and Jonathan. David, as in that's 'my star on the flag of Israel and million's necks', David. The religious right would have you believe that the relationship between David and Jonathan, the son of King Saul, was purely one of friendship. However, on closer examination, we can conclude that their relationship was one of the original gay love stories. The chapters of Samuel tells their tale: "...the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul" (1 Samuel 18:1, KJV); "And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt." (1 Samuel 18: 3-4, KJV); "Now Saul's daughter Michal was in love with David, and when they told Saul about it, he was pleased. 'I will give her to him', he thought, 'so that she may be a snare to him and so that the hand of the Philistines may be against him'. "Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, in the twain." (1 Samuel 18: 20-21, KJV); "David got up from the south side of the stone and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with his face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept together - but David wept the most." (1 Samuel 20:41, NIV); "I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women." (2 Samuel 1:26). In close readings, and substitution of the King James Version rather than the New International Version in some more 'graphic' parts, we can see that Jonathan and David's relationship transcended the bounds of friendship and into marriage (1 Samuel 18: 20-21, KJV) and most likely sexual intercourse (1 Samuel 18: 3-4, 2 Samuel 1:26, KJV). The changes of the NIV edition are blatant examples of when modern society and the religious right have tried to impose their ideals of intolerance into the fabric of the holy texts of three faiths. The conclusion we can draw from these passages is that in Ancient Hebrew times, not only was homosexuality in itself not an issue, but neither was the love, sex, and marriage of a King with another man. How does that show upon our society in light of progress? Opponents of gay marriage have also largely ignored the fact that marriage is primarily a legal institution - a contract if you will - rather than anything that has to do with religion by nature. At the point in which marriage predates modern religions and is a universal concept in society, there exists no logical reason as to why we would attach a kind of moral qualifier on it, especially when there is a historical precedent for same sex marriages even in cultures as different as ancient China and Medieval Europe.
The third main argument against homosexuality is actually a collection of several misconceptions, mostly formed against same-sex marriages. The first is that a homosexual union will 'devalue' heterosexual unions. There is absolutely no warrant for this; conservative Christians and homophobes just say so. That's why it's one of my favorite arguments, because it's so illogical and self-serving. There's never any implication of how a same-sex union directly affects a heterosexual couple's marriage. Plus, with a divorce rate of almost 50% in the United States alone (http://www.divorcereform.org/rates.html), I'd say heterosexuals are already 'devaluing' marriage on their own. The second argument is that marriage is solely for procreation; however, wouldn't that invalidate any marriage of a couple that is unable to conceive? Other arguments include: gays want to encourage polygamy (however, wouldn't two people legally declaring their love and commitment solely for each other specifically be a rejection of polygamy? And this is just another slippery slope argument; there's no warrant as to why when you allow two men to get married you absolutely have to allow multiple partnerships), same-sex unions will break down society (Finland, France, Germany. No societal breakdowns there), and the final myth, that gays and lesbians already have equality. There is still significant discrimination in all areas of society for gays and lesbians not just in the legal recognition of their relationships, but in terms of equal legal status, such as legal guardians, inheritors, ect.
America began as the land of the free, the home of the brave: but how can we call ourselves free and brave if our citizens are not all equal and some are even afraid of their lives because of something that they have no control over? Our founding fathers, primarily Deists by nature, not Christians, lived in a time when the impacts of intolerance and injustice were apparent; they saw how faith and discrimination played into politics. How are we to guide the laws of our country today if we are blinded by the laws of our faith?
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Benjamin Franklin
Thus the plan: The United States Supreme Court should grant a writ of certiorari to Lewis v Harris to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act on the grounds that it unconstitutionally violates the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause, thereby granting same sex couples the right to marry.
Do not post your signature, but if you do post your signature do not edit your post to remove it.
You are not allowed to edit your posts. I am quoting this so the judges, and your opponent can know the contents incase you decide to edit after a response which would be against the rules.
"Love is a Battlefield," Pat Benatar told us in 1983. Yet little did we know then what kind of fight we would be in today for the right to express that love. For now this nation has attempted to ban the right of homosexuals to marry, violating its citizens their unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and violating the separation of church and state by using a religiously framed definition of marriage. In order to regain legitimacy as an institution by the people and for the people, the United States Federal Government should recognize homosexuals as equal citizens under the law, rather than valuing flawed science, misquoted passages from religious sources, and unwarranted misconceptions.
Let's see here. First of all, living in a country with 70%-75% of its population Christians, it's not unreasonable to have a predominately Christian-based view on marriage. It may be wrong, like you are saying, but it's certainly understandable. That being said, you want to be able to have a same-sex marriage. So by saying the institution is not legitimate as current laws stand now is a remark made completely out of annoyance. (Anger? I'm not sure just how passionate you are about this subject)
DOH said:
In order to regain legitimacy as an institution by the people and for the people, the United States Federal Government should recognize homosexuals as equal citizens under the law, rather than valuing flawed science, misquoted passages from religious sources, and unwarranted misconceptions.
Firstly, flawed science? Since when has the Nature vs Nurture battle been solved? You cannot expect me to take that as a valid point when clearly, it's still very open to discussion.
There is evidence for both sides, yet neither has been proven correct.
As it stands now, you're hearing what you want to hear, and believing that you want to believe.
Secondly, Bible passages are rarely, if ever, quoted in politics. Add in the fact that other than Christian fundamentalists, who do not make the laws, not many people know much about the Bible (or even care about it, for that matter) to specifically bring Bible passages into play. And why would you? It's becoming almost irrelevant. Because in this day and age, not everybody is Christian, obviously. Why should the Buddhist be governed by the Christian's book? That would work if the church and state weren't seperated in the US, but they are.
I will agree with you, that religiously based laws are becoming more and more out of place in our ever-changing, excessively politically correct society. But sometimes, that's a really bad thing.
So, I won't comment much more on the Bible, because I think it has little to no relevance in this discussion, even though I am Roman Catholic. I'm trying to be as unbiased as I can here, I can't say the same for you.
Yes, I believe that gay marriages should stay the way they are, banned. I could mention that marriage was originally a Christian sacrament, and I could also mention that some Christians believe gay marriages are equivalent to Jewish boys having Bat Mitzvahs, but I won't.
What I will mention, however, is the impending rush of further amendments to the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment.
Let me ask you something, DOH. Say gay marriages are allowed. What message does that send to people with sexual prefences that are generally considered taboo? (There was once a time when homosexuality was considered taboo.)
I'll give you a for instance. Shortly after hearing gay marriages being legal, Joe Hillbilly from the southern US who, mutually, is madly in love with his sister and has always wanted to marry her, but couldn't in the past.
Now, say their love is true..what's stopping them from protesting the very same violations of their unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as you are doing? Who are you to say that it's wrong?
Even if Joe doesn't have the same community backing it as the gay community, it still rings home as it being completely and utterly unfair to the people who think of marriage as something a little different than man + woman or man + man. If you need examples of one person, with little to no backing, changing and completely influencing specific laws and rights, I will happily present them to you. I figure you, being an intelligent guy, can already can think of some.
Man + Horse? What's that DOH? You're saying the horse isn't consenting to marry? How the hell do you know that the Bonobos you mentioned are actually emitting screams of enjoyment? Monkeys are always ****ing screaming. No one speaks Bonobese. Again, it's just baseless conjecture. The man who loves his horse will protest that the horse loves him back to the grave. Let's not be hypocrites here.
Man + Door?
Man + Sister? Why not? After gay marriages become legal, the view on marriage is completely hazy.
There is no fine line. The flood gates open.
So I propose that the as-it-stands-now line should not breeched, to prevent ridiculous things such as people marrying their cats.
But, if you see nothing wrong with people marrying their cats, consider the following:
Would a Man / Dog marriage have the exact same rights as a heterosexual marriage? If you say yes, there's trouble. If you say no, there's also trouble. It would be the gay marriage outrages all over again, but on a much, much larger scale.
The entire thing is a minefield, one which should not be crossed for the sake of being fair and politically correct to everyone.
I may have sounded like I was defending people who have different views on marriage, but I'm not. I'm simply saying that no one wants people marrying their cactus plant, and it's only inevitable in the land where a woman can sue a company for not properly labeling a cup as hot.
Does the US really want to be seen more of as a laughing stock? Do you guys really want to open Pandora's Box?
If gays want to get united, then expect the man who would love to marry his donkey (Clerks II anyone?) to pipe up too.
A closing example, to kind of sum it all up.
I am a teacher in a classroom, and I have a pack of gum. I take a piece out, and Billy comes over and asks for one.
Mrs. Hamson said:
Billy, if I give you a piece of gum, I have to give everyone a piece of gum.
I don't want to ever experience a time where any of these whacky hook-ups become accepted into normal custom. I'm not talking about gay marriages. Call me closed minded, but for the sake of my sanity and the dignity of your country, no, just no.
First of all, religion has nothing to do with modern education, because we live in the age of science, so consequently the modern myth is the myth of science, not of god. So a prayer at the beginning of a class would go against the fact that the teachings in school are all about proven information, not supposed events and messages.
School is a place where we teach mathematics, history, science and languages, things that concern everybody in our contemporary society. Even if a child has the option of not participating in a prayer, he would be discriminated by the others, set aside. If an educational institution decided to obligate teachers to lead a prayer for each different religion (in order to accommodate everybody), it would just be a waste of good class time that could be used otherwise.
Education goes far deeper than the sciences, and I speak that as a physics high school teacher. While you suggest it is a waste of good class time, I would move that a prayer of blessing lasting no longer than two minutes would serve to focus the mind, and helps the students to acknowledge that the teacher cares for the students. Students, for all their actions to the contrary, love a disciplined and ordered environment where it is obvious that the authority figures care for their well-being. Success in the classroom hinges on these things, and prayer done right helps to establish this.
Also, stating that the purpose of school is to teach in this "age of science," only teaching reason and that which is proven, is completely incorrect. The real world requires every person be whole. What happened to building the whole person, the mind, the body, and the soul together? The whole person is being neglected in the current educational landscape. Even prominent evolutionary scientists acknowledge that religion is hard-wired into mankind. Avoiding it only leads to the worship of self or nature. Avoiding God and our greater purpose leads to an undeveloped sense of morality in every one of our students, which is essential to success in the real world. Even if God doesn't exist, our world will be a sorry place if morality and personal responsibility continues to degrade.
It is not because a prayer is said at the beginning of class that children will learn better, that God blesses the classroom. If the teacher gives credit to God for the good grades that the children obtain, it goes against the whole point of education and studying. So theoretically, a student could just call upon his God, pray all day, and he or she would still get good grades. We should instead encourage kids to follow in class, listen to what the teacher says and to do their homework properly, all the while keeping them calm and in touch with reality.
A prayer of blessing is not a request for miracles, but is designed to focus the student's minds. The Christian acknowledges that prayer is not intended for God's sake but for our own. It helps us to see our place in a larger world, and to put our worries and concerns aside in an effort to move forward with life. Students come into a classroom distracted by the things of this world, their own family situations, divorce, fights, and fears. Expert after expert in the educational field will say that these distractions prevent learning. The way to limit these distractions is to provide a safe, focused environment. A prayer given every day at the start of class does these things.
Additionally, while I am not endorsing Christian prayer but leaving it to the teacher, the Christian encourages personal responsibility with his prayers. He does not just leave it to God, as you suggest, but rather uses prayer to provoke himself to do everything as if it were for the Lord. One only turns things over to God completely when the task is greater than one's self, or when they are dealing with forces of nature and God.
While I feel that I may be able to win this round, I know that I will not be able to perform at my best in either this or future rounds. The small amount of time I have is being dedicated to Smash and Smash-related activities (I'm not complaining ). However because of that I will be forfeiting this match, so that at least one of us can debate at our fullest.
If you do forfeit you are not doing ti83pop a favor. He is going to have to right a five paragraph organized essay to Evil Eye or Crimson King and if he doesn't do good enough then he won't get accepted.
I'm lost. Delphiki, I'm not performing at my best either, due to me deciding to join back yesterday since this was still going. I barely have any research, and you may win. It's pretty even...now only if I could edit, seeing as how I am noticing some flaws in my whole post. Well, I'm also confused, it's Duke and Delphiki and....me? and...that first post is completley confusing. Well, I hope we can work things out :-\.
Sorry if I'm not supposed to be posting, I am really confused xo.
I have seen a few videos and am currently looking for sources for your first two arguments. But I have found a source to combat your third (and supposedly easiest) argument. This article is from The Institute for Creation Research.
Our present atmosphere consists of 78% nitrogen (N2), 21% molecular oxygen (O2), and 1% of other gases, such as carbon dioxide CO2), argon (Ar), and water vapor H2O). An atmosphere containing free oxygen would be fatal to all origin of life schemes.
This is under the assumption that the atmosphere is similar to when life was created. Many Evolutionists believe that there was an absence of oxygen in the atmosphere in the early earth.
However, this would also be fatal to an evolutionary origin of life. If there were no oxygen there would be no protective layer of ozone surrounding the earth. Ozone is produced by radiation from the sun on the oxygen in the atmosphere, converting the diatomic oxygen(O2) we breathe to triatomic oxygen O3), which is ozone.
No ozone means no protective layer. This means deadly ultra violet rays would destroy all organic molecules. They would be reduced to basic gases such as nitrogen and oxygen. Therefore, In the presence of oxygen life could not evolve. In the absence of oxygen, no ozone, life still could not evolve or even exist for that matter.
Have you considered a living cell irreducibly complex? It seems like a good example to me. Here is a picture of a useful part of a single celled organism commonly known as a flagellum. It has a tail that is used to power it along. The tiny motor that drives it is essential to the organism. Here is a diagram of that motor.
Every cell contains hundreds of these miniature motors embedded in the surfaces of the mitochondria. Each is 200,000 times smaller than a pinhead. The motor forges a bond between ADP and phosphate to form ATP. The ATP couples with other processes in the cell requiring energy to reform ADP and phosphate. So energy is directed to contract muscles, beat the heart and drive thought processes in the brain, while the products are recycled.
As you can see this motor drives the whole organism. Evolution doesn't stand much chance against the precise compilation of proteins needed to make this work.
Each enzyme is composed of thirty-one separate proteins that in turn are made of thousands of precisely arranged amino acids. Take away any one of the 31 proteins and the motor is useless. It could not have evolved.
Well, after writing several "opening statements," I decided to get right down to it.
Thanks for the history lesson, DW, but I don't know what your stance is, beyond "the country is in bad shape." If a 3rd party can't win, and neither Democrats nor Republicans are what the country needs, then I look forward to hearing about your hypothetical dream party. Meanwhile, I'm going to answer the topic.
Short version: Right here, right now, within this system, this political climate, and this world, the Democratic Party is the best choice to lead.
First, you can't judge the parties based on their 150+ year histories. The Democrats are not the Democratic-Republicans, the Republicans are not the Whigs. In fact, the Republicans aren't the Republicans from 1860, 1910, or even 1960. Most of the history is irrelevant, except for one part: the fact that it is irrelevant.
Rather than being defined by a continuum of values that slowly change, electoral politics are predictable only in that they change abruptly.
The modern Republican Party began with Ronald Reagan. The modern Democratic Party began with Franklin Delano Roosevelt. What do these two, plus the two "founders" you mentioned (Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln) have in common?
Their election marked a profound change in their parties' politics. Ronald Reagan realigned the Republican Party to its current course of "compassionate conservatism," just as FDR realigned the Democrats with the New Deal. These "realignments" happen approximately every 36 years, plus or minus eight. We're about due for one.
Very, very due. You're right that the Democrats appear to have lost their way, arguably having lost most of their power in 1994's midterm elections, when they lost Congress. You're also correct that in the 2006 midterm elections, a vote for Democrats was effectively a vote for "not Republicans." Where you're wrong is in thinking that the latter is a bad thing.
The Democrats are on the verge of a drastic party realignment. Due to the past six years, and the drift of the Republican party further and further to the right, the Democrats are being forced into an actual platform. And already we are seeing results.
The best example is climate change. In just two months of a Democratic congress, already climate change is an issue, rather than a taboo. While no, they aren't perfect, the Democrats are finally developing the charismatic leaders necessary, and are finally gathering around important issues. The Democrats have something to prove, and a base to motivate. They have a platform to develop, and while it is moving from a "We aren't Republicans" something people can rally behind. Something concrete, such as conservation, climate change, and the minimum wage.
Like it or not, the Democrats are the Next Big Thing, which is something they haven't been for 60 years. It's about time. And I'd much rather support that, then complain that "both parties in their current form stink, and a 3rd party can't win."
Gay Marriage is an issue that is hotly debated in today's society.
Many of these arguments lie in the basis that "Homosexuals should not marry because it 'destroys the sanctity of marriage'".
Let's define marriage:
1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage.
3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.
4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.
Now, we ask ourselves in a society in which homosexuals desire that pact of legal marriage, which brings with it a wealth of financial capabilities, should two people of the same gender be allowed to marry?
In the past, homosexuality has been a sin, considered by many to be a choice, and considered by many to be disgusting, vile, and in some (many) cases, punishable. Now, look at the people vehemently against gay marriage. The tendency is for predominantly religious communities to be against it. Now, freedom of speech and expression means they're entitled to their views. However, this does not mean they are allowed to deny someone's rights just because they feel the need to.
There's a lot of argument as to whether or not homosexuality is a choice. In the overall scheme of things. The implication is that homosexuality is inherently bad. Why does it matter if it's a choice or not? It only matters if you don't want them to be homosexuals in the first place. There's no reason for that, since there's no study that's shown a higher level of truancy in homosexual adults and children alike.
Let us cover the options of choice. If they have the choice, then homosexuality is much like a religion. The homosexual has a belief system, in that it prefers sex with members of the same gender. This is the same as a religious person, who believes in a god. Should we restrict a homosexual's rights because he believes in unions between same-sex people? Well, the only time it would be rational to do so is if it infringes upon the rights of others, because homosexuals have a right to "The Pursuit of Happiness". Does homosexuality harm others? Since sexual acts would occur behind closed doors, then isn't it rational to say that nobody but themselves would be affected? Does it put themselves in danger? Homosexuals generally deal with the same kinds of sexual acts that straight couples do, in that oral and anal sex are involved. They simply cannot do ******l sex. If they don't have the choice, then they are being persecuted for something they had no control over from the beginning. Furthermore, they're being persecuted for something nobody will be put in harm's way as the result of.
In Greek and early Roman times, homosexuality was, for the most part, acceptable. As Christianity spread throughout the western world in the early 1st millenium, it became more and more taboo, and more and more a terrible thing. No religion can impact the effect of the law on its people.
Many also argue that homosexuality is unnatural. This may or may not be true, but it's completely irrelevant. Many things are unnatural. For example, cars are unnatural, as well as pavement, houses, heating systems, and the like. Do we ban them for that? No, we don't. Furthermore, many animal species have homosexual members among them.
In summation, restricting homosexuals of their right to marry, is simply an effect of societal preferences towards heterosexual relationships. The fact that this denies homosexuals of their basic right to "the pursuit of happiness" is against what was written in the constitution, that "all men are created equal." Homosexuality infringes on no one, and is not inherently dangerous to anyone. It's simply a sexual preference. Nothing more. They deserve the right to marry, to be happy, just as much as a religious person, or anybody else.
I've been reading some of these threads, and it's SO HARD to not say anything! You guys are making up some awesome points, and there's going to be a lot of great debates. Some of which, I wish the judges best of luck when it comes to judging.
I'm glad there are advancements in getting the issue of global climate change on the table, but when you consider the massive shifts in policy and additude the Bush administration, along with a republican congress, was able to achieve in such a short time, it pales in comparison. To say that the Democrats are on the verge of a massive, conclusive shift is incredibly wishful thinking, which is not to mention that it's entirely theoretical. You claim that the Republicans drifting to the right will force the Democrats to take a position in the left, when really, it has only caused the Democrats to lose power. Some of the Democratic party is even moving slightly to the right in order to garner votes from this rapidly growing voter-base.
With the rapidly escalating war, our country plunging deeper into debt, and the bill of rights being stripped to nothing, we don't have time to wait for a revolution in a party whose broadness has weakened it to its very core. The republicans have succeeded in polarizing the country further and drawing out the conservative voters they need to maintain power. If anything, the surge of "Not Republican" votes for Democrats is merely a reaction to the extremes brought upon by the current regime, and once Bush is out of power, many of these votes will disappear. The Democrats are having an incredibly difficult time gaining any power, and will continue to do so, having taken significant blows to their credibility since the early 90s, if not sooner. And even if the Democrats become the "Next Big Thing" as you say, there's no guaruntee that they'll change anything all that fast. The Democrats that get elected are the moderate ones, who would only change the policies of the Bush administration as much as needed to appease the voters.
What we need now is a strong party to replace the Democrats, not a third party. There are times when the liberals annoy me as much as the conservatives, but if we must have a bi-partisan system, the party opposing the republicans should be one that is ideologically the opposite. In much of Europe, such parties already exist, but not in America, where everyone's afraid of losing the Christian right. But I contend that there are plenty of Americans of age who do not vote, who would support a more left-wing party. Since we seem to like this bi-partisan system, the democratic party would falter and die, as they've already begun to, and perhaps their members would gravitate to one side or the other.
This solution would gain detractors of the conservative agenda a real voice in the government, and either way would shift American politics as a whole more towards the center of the politcal compass, rather than the right. I contend that the only reason this hasn't happened yet is that politicians are too afraid or comfortable with the current state of things to reorganize thusly, but it remains the best solution, as both the Democrats and the Republicans are obviously unfit to lead the country.
Let's see here. First of all, living in a country with 70%-75% of its population Christians, it's not unreasonable to have a predominately Christian-based view on marriage. It may be wrong, like you are saying, but it's certainly understandable. That being said, you want to be able to have a same-sex marriage. So by saying the institution is not legitimate as current laws stand now is a remark made completely out of annoyance. (Anger? I'm not sure just how passionate you are about this subject)
An institution cannot be called legitimate when it purports such a double standard of promoting equality and human rights abroad while actively discriminating against its own citizens - it destroys the governments credibility. This, along with other factors such as Guantanamo etc, is why the United States no longer has moral authority to coerce other nations on human rights issues.
Also your argumentation creates a tyranny of the majority - under your interpretation, genocide, apartheid, and all forms of brutality would be acceptable if it recieved majority approval. Even though you may not expressly argue these things, remember judges it is not what we do, but rather what can be justified due to our actions - you even try to hold me to this standard later on in the debate with your slippery slope arguments.
Firstly, flawed science? Since when has the Nature vs Nurture battle been solved? You cannot expect me to take that as a valid point when clearly, it's still very open to discussion.
There is evidence for both sides, yet neither has been proven correct.
As it stands now, you're hearing what you want to hear, and believing that you want to believe.
If you would read my argument, it's not about nature vs. nuture, but rather whether homosexuality is a naturally occuring phenomenon. At the point in which homosexuality has been documented among other species and a natural part of their existence, then its occurence within humanity can not be declared unnatural - therefore, it is a natural occurence that society should accomodate for.
Secondly, Bible passages are rarely, if ever, quoted in politics. Add in the fact that other than Christian fundamentalists, who do not make the laws, not many people know much about the Bible (or even care about it, for that matter) to specifically bring Bible passages into play. And why would you? It's becoming almost irrelevant. Because in this day and age, not everybody is Christian, obviously. Why should the Buddhist be governed by the Christian's book? That would work if the church and state weren't seperated in the US, but they are.
I will agree with you, that religiously based laws are becoming more and more out of place in our ever-changing, excessively politically correct society. But sometimes, that's a really bad thing.
My arguments are a pre-emption to any question as whether there is a moral qualm with homosexuality or not. Because morality is so arbitrary and personally definable, I argue that it should not be evaluated in a legal context such as this; and even if it were, there are instances where religious texts are flawed and contradictory and should be thrown out.
Yes, I believe that gay marriages should stay the way they are, banned. I could mention that marriage was originally a Christian sacrament, and I could also mention that some Christians believe gay marriages are equivalent to Jewish boys having Bat Mitzvahs, but I won't.
What I will mention, however, is the impending rush of further amendments to the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment.
Why should gay marriages stay banned? You offer no warrant to this. Speaking of warrants, you don't have one as to why marriage is an expressly Christian sacrament. Yes, it is one of the 7 sacraments of Catholicism, but marriages predate Christianity (even by Judaism, not to mention cultures such as the Greeks, Babylonians, Aryans, and East Asian cultures) and has been found in pretty much every culture on earth.
Let me ask you something, DOH. Say gay marriages are allowed. What message does that send to people with sexual prefences that are generally considered taboo? (There was once a time when homosexuality was considered taboo.)
I'll give you a for instance. Shortly after hearing gay marriages being legal, Joe Hillbilly from the southern US who, mutually, is madly in love with his sister and has always wanted to marry her, but couldn't in the past.
Now, say their love is true..what's stopping them from protesting the very same violations of their unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as you are doing? Who are you to say that it's wrong?
Even if Joe doesn't have the same community backing it as the gay community, it still rings home as it being completely and utterly unfair to the people who think of marriage as something a little different than man + woman or man + man. If you need examples of one person, with little to no backing, changing and completely influencing specific laws and rights, I will happily present them to you. I figure you, being an intelligent guy, can already can think of some.
Man + Horse? What's that DOH? You're saying the horse isn't consenting to marry? How the hell do you know that the Bonobos you mentioned are actually emitting screams of enjoyment? Monkeys are always ****ing screaming. No one speaks Bonobese. Again, it's just baseless conjecture. The man who loves his horse will protest that the horse loves him back to the grave. Let's not be hypocrites here.
Man + Door?
Man + Sister? Why not? After gay marriages become legal, the view on marriage is completely hazy.
There is no fine line. The flood gates open.
So I propose that the as-it-stands-now line should not breeched, to prevent ridiculous things such as people marrying their cats.
But, if you see nothing wrong with people marrying their cats, consider the following:
Would a Man / Dog marriage have the exact same rights as a heterosexual marriage? If you say yes, there's trouble. If you say no, there's also trouble. It would be the gay marriage outrages all over again, but on a much, much larger scale.
The entire thing is a minefield, one which should not be crossed for the sake of being fair and politically correct to everyone.
I may have sounded like I was defending people who have different views on marriage, but I'm not. I'm simply saying that no one wants people marrying their cactus plant, and it's only inevitable in the land where a woman can sue a company for not properly labeling a cup as hot.
Does the US really want to be seen more of as a laughing stock? Do you guys really want to open Pandora's Box?
If gays want to get united, then expect the man who would love to marry his donkey (Clerks II anyone?) to pipe up too.
A closing example, to kind of sum it all up.
I am a teacher in a classroom, and I have a pack of gum. I take a piece out, and Billy comes over and asks for one.
There is an incredible flaw in your logic - thus the reason why this kind of slippery slope argumentation is ridiculous. If gay marriage is legalized, there is no independant warrant as to why we would allow incestuous marriages, or interspecies marriages, or polygamous marriages. Firstly, incestuous marriages are inherently detrimental to society because of the negative effects of inbreeding (and in the case of gay incest, the incredible minuteness of the situtation would justify there being a psychological reason as to there being something wrong with the girl who wants to marry her sister - the chances of gay siblings are marginal at best, and having two gay incestuous sibilings would be even more of a minority that it's not a significant enough impact).
Secondly, pets and inanimate objects are not people and therefore have no legal standing - marriage is a legal issue about rights and benefits; when only one party has legal standing and the other is standing on 4 legs or its hinges...pets and doors don't get married, because sentient or cognizant of the situation and cannot sign a contract.
Thirdly, legalizing gay marriage sets a definitive brightline as to what constitutes a marriage - a union of two unrelated people. This nullifies any of your potential impacts because gay marriage reaffirms the ideals of commitments between two persons, negating polygamous and interspecies marriages.
On your bonobo/horse analogy, the man is speaking for the horse, whereas the monkeys are making mutual sounds of enjoyment...there's a blatant distinction between monkey moaning and monkey screeching.
Finally, you speak of the dignity of my country. My country is a country that tells me I am unequal in the eyes of the law for something I cannot control. My country is one that spreads democracy with one hand while propping up dictatorships with the other. My country is the one that pressures China and nations in the Middle East while denying its own citizens agency and stripping away the rights of its citizens. Letting me get married could only help repair the shreds of dignity we have left.
---
THE UNDERVIEW
Judges - here is how you should evaluate this round; impacts.
In the status quo, inequality runs rampant as people are denied equal protection under the law on something as trivial as their sexual orientation. This leads a whole host of negative impacts; by having governmental policies that actively discriminate against a significant sector of the population, it solidifes political divisions that create particularized identities that justify not only subjection of the minority, but also legitimizes the rationality that discrimination is ok. This thought process basically justifies violence and hate against the subjected minority, which is why homophobia is still a problem in today's society.
Also remember that gay marriage firmly answers the question of what constitutes a marriage; at the point in which there are no unifying variables as to why legalizing gay marriage would justify other forms of marriage, there exists no negative impact to gay marriage. Also remember Delorted doesn't offer a reason why gay marriage itself is inherently bad, just hypothetical impacts that have no interal link from gay marriage to the negative impact itself.
Third, look at the positive impacts; legalizing gay marriage not only answers one of the most pressing issues of our country, but reaffirms our beliefs in equality and protections and benefits afforded by the law. If we want a society without discrimination, then we must break down the walls of institutionalized discrimination - however these prison walls are very high and very thick, and we must recognize that there is no quick fix. However, hate is not out of control; the walls can be broken down, block by block, step by step. That which has been built can be dismantled. Any step that can break down these walls should be taken. Historically, the granting of rights to minorities has been a sign that society has progressed, and can lead to other changes, such as ending judicial deference to the military, which would spawn a whole host of positive impacts.
Also, gay rights are critical to resisting all forms of social oppression and avoiding the next holocaust.
PETER TATCHELL says the gay liberationmovement's challenge to straight male masculinity offers a unique and revolutionary contribution to the emancipation of the whole of humanity from all forms of oppression and subjugation. Lesbian and gay liberation is of critical importance to the broader project of human emancipation. It is not merely a minority issue, nor purely a question of civil rights and sexual freedom.The ultimate aim is a cultural revolution to end heterosexual supremacism and the concomitant cult of heterosexual masculinity which underpins all relations of oppression and exploitation. This was the revolutionary agenda of the lesbian and gay liberation movement which emerged 20 years ago following the Stonewall Riots in New York in June 1969. In contrast to earlier liberal-oriented movements for homosexual equality, the lesbian and gay liberation movementdid not seek to ape heterosexual values or secure the acceptance of homosexuals within the existing sexual conventions. Indeed, itrepudiated the prevailing sexual morality and institutions - rejecting not only heterosexism but also heterosexual masculinity with its oppressive predisposition to rivalry , toughness and aggression (most potently symbolised by the rapist and the queer-basher). In contrast the "radical drag" and ''gender-bender" politics of the Gay Liberation Front glorified male gentleness. It was a conscious, if sometimes exaggerated, attempt to renounce the oppressiveness of masculinity and subvert the way masculinity functions to buttress the subordination of women and gay men .Lesbian and gay liberation is therefore truly revolutionary because it specifically rejects the male heterosexual cult of masculine competitivenes s, domination and violence. Instead, it affirms the worthwhileness of male sensitivity and affection between men and, in the case of lesbians, the intrinsic value of an eroticism and love independent of heterosexual men. By challenging heterosexual masculinity, the politics of lesbian and gay liberation has profound radical implications for oppressed peoples everywhere: it actively subverts the male heterosexual machismo' values which lie at the heart of all systems of domination, exploitation and oppression. Lesbian and gay liberation is therefore not an issue which is peripheral. It is, indeed absolutely central to revolutionary change and human liberation in general .Without the successful construction of a cult of heterosexual masculinity and a mass of aggressive male egos, neither sexual, class, racial, species, nor imperialist oppression are possible . All these different forms of oppression depend on two factors for their continued maintenance. First, on specific economic and political structures. And second, on a significant proportion of the population, mainly heterosexual men, being socialised into the acceptance of harsh masculine values which involve the legitimisation of aggression and the suppression of gentleness and emotion. The embracing of these culturally-conditioned macho values, whether consciously or unconsciously, is what makes so many millions of people able to participate in repressive regimes. (This interaction between social structures, ideology and individual psychology was a thesis which the communist psychologist, Wilhelm Reich, was attempting to articulate nearly 60 years ago in his book, The Mass Psychology of Fascism ). In the case of German fascism, what Nazism did was merely awake and excite the latent brutality which is intrinsic to heterosexual masculinity in class societies. It then systematically manipulated and organised this unleashed masculine violence into a fascist regime of terror and torture which culminated in the holocaust. Since it is the internalisation of the masculine cult of toughness and domination which makes people psychologically suited and willing to be part of oppressive relations of exploitation and subjection, repressive states invariably glorify masculine "warrior" ideals and legally and ideologically suppress those men - mainly homosexuals - who fail to conform to them. Given that this internalisation of masculine aggression within the male population is a prerequisite for injustice and tyranny, love and tenderness between men ceases to be a purely private matter or simply a question of personal lifestyle. Instead, it objectively becomes an act of subversion which undermines the very foundations of oppression. Hence the Nazi's vilification of gay men as "sexual subversives" and "sexual saboteurs" who, in the words of Heinrich Himmler, had to be "exterminated- root and branch." In conclusion: the goal of eradicating injustice and exploitation requires us to change both the social structure and the individual personality to create people who, liberated from masculinity, no longer psychologically crave the power to dominate and exploit others and who are therefore unwilling to be the agents of oppressive regimes (whether as soldiers, police, gaolers and censors or as routine civil servants and state administrators who act as the passive agents of repression by keeping the day-to-day machinery of unjust government ticking over ). By challenging the cult of heterosexual masculinity, lesbian and gay liberation politics is about much more than the limited agenda of human rights. It offers a unique and revolutionary contribution to the emancipation of the whole of humanity from all forms of oppression and subjugation.
Lastly, if you look at delorted's impacts, none of them come close to outweighing the positive benefits that gay marriage can afford - they're mitigation at best, because not only are they minor problems, but they're all hypothetical. If a plan can solve grave systemic harms with a minimal risk of reprocussion, they you do the plan because the post plan world is better than that of the status quo.
And lastly, you always want to evaluate systemic harms above forecasted harms because their predictions are self-fulling prophecies that are inherently self defeating - you give priority to problems that are happening now.
Dublin ’91 (Max. Institute Fellow at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at Toronto. Futurehype)
It is often said that we are living in the age of information, but insofar as this is true, it follows that we must also be living in the midst of a great deal of bad information, that is, misinformation, propaganda, nonsense and hype. In our time prophecy, in its various forms of prediction, forecasting, futurology and scenario writing, has become a major source of bad information – bad in the sense that it misleads us by distorting our regard for both the present and the future. It thereby brings out the worst in us, encouraging us to behave in narrow, selfish, and self-defeating ways. Because it so often works this way, notwithstanding the good that may sometimes come from trying to be mindful of the future, the role of prophecy has become rather malign. Although our prophets like to tout themselves as being escorts along the avenues of salvation and exploration, all too often they act as legitimators of questionable schemes and programs that unleash the forces of abandonment, neglect, irresponsibility, destabilization and exploitation. But this is not surprising when you consider how simple-minded, self-serving and childishly impressionable most of our prophets are.
In fact, since predictions are often heavily laden with the values of our prophets, when we buy into the world which they project before us – and thereby help make their prophecies self fulfilling – we fulfill not ourselves but them. Fulfilling the visions of the prophets of our time has meant not only buying into banal technological utopias, but also into their vain fantasies of controlling everything from recessions to nuclear wars.
*gasp* Me against Eorlingas? I might as well forgeit now :D. Well, we'll see what happens....of course, I haven't checked my own thread yet...xo
EDIT: Yep, me against Eorlingas. Wow. I'm against a long time debate hall veteran who I look up to even...I am soooo going to kick his butt.
Great...well, it's Eorlingas...'s turn. Well, Good luck trying to beat me!....*sob* Also, do we get a modified finishing time? That whole thing kinda threw me off.
I've seen the flagellum tail example before; this passage is taken from scientific american's 15 answers to creationist nonsense:
Yet evolutionary biologists have answers to these objections.
First, there exist flagellae with forms simpler
than the one that Behe cites, so it is not necessary for all
those components to be present for a flagellum to work.
The sophisticated components of this flagellum all have
precedents elsewhere in nature, as described by Kenneth
R. Miller of Brown University and others. In fact, the entire
flagellum assembly is extremely similar to an organelle
that Yersinia pestis, the bubonic plague bacterium,
uses to inject toxins into cells.
The key is that the flagellum’s component structures,
which Behe suggests have no value apart from their role
in propulsion, can serve multiple functions that would
have helped favor their evolution. The final evolution of
the flagellum might then have involved only the novel recombination
of sophisticated parts that initially evolved
for other purposes. Similarly, the blood-clotting system
seems to involve the modification and elaboration of proteins
that were originally used in digestion, according to
studies by Russell F. Doolittle of the University of California
at San Diego. So some of the complexity that Behe
calls proof of intelligent design is not irreducible at all.
Complexity of a different kind—“specified complexity”—
is the cornerstone of the intelligent-design arguments
of William A. Dembski of Baylor University in
his books The Design Inference and No Free Lunch. Essentially
his argument is that living things are complex
in a way that undirected, random processes could never
produce. The only logical conclusion, Dembski asserts,
in an echo of Paley 200 years ago, is that some superhuman
intelligence created and shaped life.
Dembski’s argument contains several holes. It is
wrong to insinuate that the field of explanations consists
only of random processes or designing intelligences. Researchers
into nonlinear systems and cellular automata
at the Santa Fe Institute and elsewhere have demonstrated
that simple, undirected processes can yield extraordinarily
complex patterns. Some of the complexity seen in
organisms may therefore emerge through natural phenomena
that we as yet barely understand. But that is far
different from saying that the complexity could not have
arisen naturally.
As I have stated before, just because evolutionists do not know EXACTLY how every single form of life evolved, we should not give up on finding out a natural cause. Turning to the supernatural for an answer is giving up.
)
