[DWYP-Safe]Gay Marriage

[Crimson King]

I could see some of you guys in the main topic aching to post on this subject. So anyone who participated in DWYP (temp debaters included) can post here.

Someone get the ball rolling.

 

[McCloud]

Gay Marriage should be legalized, at least from a civil point of view.

Why? Because the institution of marriage is a human pursuit that does not infringe on the rights of other human beings. If a church refuses to marry a same sex couple- that's fine. Get the mayor to do it. It's a civil union, if not a religious one. Same sex couples can learn to respect the church's opinion, and the church can learn to respect the government's opinion.

There's something to stoke the fire.

But.

We didn't start the fire
It was always burning
Since the world's been turning

Billy Joel. >_>

(yeah, I know that last part was useless. But I like that song and I felt like sticking it in there somehow.)

Let's go. *dings bell*

 

[Deleted member]

Can we use this thread to comment on how pwn DoH and I debated as well?

(I'd say something pertinent, but like. I'll wait.)

 

[McCloud]

I'd like to say that I owned. But I debated Marth... wasn't difficult. :S

good job to both of you though.

 

[Hamsterpie]

I personally think that gays shouldnt be pushing for equal marriage rights- mariiage is a relegious institution that the government recognizes with added benefits. If they want to be married, then they sould take it up with the churches. What i think gays should be pushing for is equal rights for civil unions as marriage. But simply denying two people who love each other the benefits of marriage because they are the same sex is not right.

 

[Sargent_Peach]

I personally think that gays shouldnt be pushing for equal marriage rights- mariiage is a relegious institution that the government recognizes with added benefits. If they want to be married, then they sould take it up with the churches. What i think gays should be pushing for is equal rights for civil unions as marriage. But simply denying two people who love each other the benefits of marriage because they are the same sex is not right.

How can you justify that anyone should not be pushing for equal rights in anything? Everyone is "supposed" to be equal, even though that will probably never happen. This is America, and if gays want to marry, then they should be able to do so. It isn't going to hurt you, or affect your life. Our country should have the most choices out of any other country. You like how I put "choices" in there, like the choice to have abortion, hahaha. Another great topic.

Delorted and DoH really had a good debate. Some people like The Mad Hatter(View), and McCloud didn't have debates that flourished due to lack of "resistance." (mostly from their opponets not posting).

 

[DoH]

I personally think that gays shouldnt be pushing for equal marriage rights- mariiage is a relegious institution that the government recognizes with added benefits. If they want to be married, then they sould take it up with the churches. What i think gays should be pushing for is equal rights for civil unions as marriage. But simply denying two people who love each other the benefits of marriage because they are the same sex is not right.

Because seperate but equal worked out so well before.

I think the best thing would be to strip marriage of any political entitlements and make everyone get civil unions.

 

[kaid]

According to the separation of church and state, it is unconstitutional to ban any religious precedings that do not harm people. This includes any form of marrage, gay or otherwise.

 

[Tera253]

If gay marriage is legalized, then wierdoes like polygamists and pedophiles are going to be marching on Congress demanding rights too.

And, if the entire world was gay, it wouldn't be long before the human race went extinct.
~Tera253~

 

[The Mad Hatter]

If gay marriage is legalized, then wierdoes like polygamists and pedophiles are going to be marching on Congress demanding rights too.

Are you serious? I mean really. Homosexuality is not a crime. Are you trying to compare a moral issue with a legal issue?

And, if the entire world was gay, it wouldn't be long before the human race went extinct.
~Tera253~

Gay rights are not about converting the entire human race.
Psh.. Please.

 

[Mediocre]

Personally, I don't think the government should marry people at all. I think everybody (not just gay people) should have civil unions. Churches should marry people. Some churches would marry gays, and some wouldn't, but the government wouldn't be involved either way.

There's no reason the government has to marry people.

If gay marriage is legalized, then wierdoes like polygamists and pedophiles are going to be marching on Congress demanding rights too.

You're comparing homosexuality with pedophilia? How are they similar at all, other than being related to sex? In one case, you've got two consenting adults having sex. In the other, you've got an adult ****** a child.

Yeah, that sounds like exactly the same thing to me.

And, if the entire world was gay, it wouldn't be long before the human race went extinct.
~Tera253~

So, are you suggesting that gay marriage is going to make the entire world gay? If not, I fail to see how your point is relevant.

 

[Sargent_Peach]

If gay marriage is legalized, then wierdoes like polygamists and pedophiles are going to be marching on Congress demanding rights too.

First off, pedophiles are adults that are sexually attracted to young children. Being a pedophile is wrong because one part, the child, is unwillingly in that relationship. It is a crime. Are you saying that being gay is a crime? I really can't believe that I'm even acknowleding your comments because they are so absurd. Pedophiles and gays have NOTHING in common.

Are you saying that because gays get the right to vote that pedophiles are going to "march on congress" and demand the right to marry little kids that they like to molest? Stupid and Irrelevent to the actual debate.

So your saying that polygamists, pedophiles, and gays are all weirdoes? Why don't you try having a "real" arguement, instead of stating your obvious "religious" opinions.

 

[McCloud]

Tera: You're slippin all over that slope buddy.

 

[Digital Watches]

If gay marriage is legalized, then wierdoes like polygamists and pedophiles are going to be marching on Congress demanding rights too.

And, if the entire world was gay, it wouldn't be long before the human race went extinct.
~Tera253~

Excuse me if I sound rude, but this sort of ludicrous argument is exactly the sort of thing that loses me respect for many anti-gay-marriage activists, especially ones that jump to it with such celerity as you have today.

Let's first address the most unfounded of the three claims: Pedophiles. In what way are homosexuals and pedophiles comparable? Age of consent laws exist with an obvious purpose in mind: Protecting young children from being abused. I'd be hard pressed to find anyone in any sort of legal authority - or anyone in their right mind, for that matter - who thinks that marriage between a naive minor and someone who coerced them into it is similar to marriage between two fully consenting adults that happen to be the same sex.

Polygamy: Here's another strange comparison to draw. It would be quite an abusable system were the state to provide benefits for everyone who married multiple people. The way our society is set up, monogamy seems to be quite ingrained, and state-approved polygamy or polyandry would vastly upset this system. However, many married couples agree to "open marriages," which is a fully legal practice, and many non-married groups of people engage in polyamourous acts, sex and otherwise. As long as all parties involved are fully informed, consenting adults, there's really no problem, and I don't think any of those people are looking for government benefits in such systems.

And finally, the whole "Human race will die off" argument I've heard who knows how many times. Firstly, in order to make this argument without setting a double-standard, you have to essentially claim that birth control is a sin as well, since the intent of birth control to prevent conception, and the argument you've made relies wholly on the impossiblity of conception among homosexuals via the normal means. And that doesn't even bring into question how inconcievable it is that the human race will become uniformly homosexual because gay marriage is legalized. And really, marriage has nothing to do with whether children are produced by them in the first place. It's not like all the gay people are going to say "Oh sh-t, I can't get married! Better start having sex with the opposite gender." The fact of the matter is, homosexuals are termed a minority for a reason. Per capita, they are far too few to cause any serious threat to our population, which isn't exactly in jeopardy in the first place. And even in the nigh-impossible scenario wherein everyone on the planet is gay, advances in in-vitro fertilization are such that the human race would have nothing to worry about. The point is moot.

 

[sheepyman]

There's more to add to the 'end of the world' argument.

The fact that homosexuals can't marry and heterosexuals can creates a sort of wall between them. Homosexuals are regarded as less, as terms like "you're gay, you're a ***" show.

This causes homosexuals to 'stay in the closet'. If homosexuality is not genetic, i.e. if it is a conscious choice, then we have nothing to worry about because the idea of homosexuality is then non-existent anyway, and again can't spread.

If it IS genetic, then homosexuals 'in the closet' spread their genetics, thus causing there to be more homosexuals.

So actually, your argument does itself in, and legalizing gay marriage, the first step to equalizing homosexuals in the eyes of the public, is actually helping to prevent your theorized 'end of the human race'.

And nobody won their debate as much as I did, unless they were nearly unopposed . And even then...

 

[DoH]

If gay marriage is legalized, then wierdoes like polygamists and pedophiles are going to be marching on Congress demanding rights too.

And, if the entire world was gay, it wouldn't be long before the human race went extinct.
~Tera253~

How ****ing dense are you? Congress would never legalize polygamy and pedophilia because those have direct detrimental effects on society.

Allowing gay marriage does not turn the whole world gay - straight parents don't all raise straight kids and gay parents wouldn't all raise gay kids. Plus gay people can still breed, through artificial insemination.

 

[McCloud]

Nearly unopposed?

I see your claim and raise you a

originally posted by MarthMaster92: so all in all, gay marriage is pointless, it's not right, and it's just plain sickening.

Yes folks, gay marriage is sickening.

p.s. congrats on the brooming, sheepy.

Whoopz

L^_^;

Congrats on changing your name to green, sheepy.

 

[Mediocre]

Nearly unopposed?

I see your claim and raise you a



Yes folks, gay marriage is sickening.

p.s. congrats on the brooming, sheepy.

sheepy's been broomed for a while.

He just decided to change his name to green.

 

[Crimson King]

If gay marriage is legalized, then wierdoes like polygamists and pedophiles are going to be marching on Congress demanding rights too.

And, if the entire world was gay, it wouldn't be long before the human race went extinct.
~Tera253~

I really wanted to respond to your debate. First, I need to know WHY you clump pedophiles, who aren't even human, with polygamists. Moses was a polygamist, so was Abraham in fact he fathered children by both of his wives (Isiah and I-something). Also, penguins have homosexual tendencies. Is there something wrong with that?

Secondly, the human race is causing its own extinction and homosexuality is mother nature's way (or God's way) of lowering the population instead of a massive plague or something catastrophic. A few generations of not reproducing would still leave the earth vastly over-populated.

Finally, I guess you say marriage shouldn't be allowed because it doesn't result in children. What of infertile couples? Should they be banned from marriage? What of couples who are both widows (the bible allows it so) and are too old to have kids? Are they banned from marriage in your utopia?

You have to realize, Marriage is a GOVERNMENT title. The churches adopted it to sanction who could and couldn't get married in the eyes of God. Now, with that in mind, how can you outlaw something that anyone else has rights to.

Personally, I think it should remain illegal only because since Christian pay taxes they are funding the marriage licenses (like abortions if that is legal) and they have just as much say in if their money should fund that. I know I wouldn't want my tax dollars funding something I was morally against.

Can't wait to hear your reply.

 

[Mediocre]

Secondly, the human race is causing its own extinction and homosexuality is mother nature's way (or God's way) of lowering the population instead of a massive plague or something catastrophic. A few generations of not reproducing would still leave the earth vastly over-populated.

I just wanted to point out that mother nature (can't speak for God; I'm not in on his plans) doesn't give a crap about overpopulation. Mother Nature (aka evolution) favors those who reproduce as much as possible.

If humanity kills off half the species on the planet because we had too many babies, we've won from an evolutionary species (as long as the human species as a whole survives).

I'm not saying that I'm for this outcome, I'm just saying that Mother Nature is survival of the fittest, and the fit survive by killing off the weaker.

 

[Digital Watches]

I just wanted to point out that mother nature (can't speak for God; I'm not in on his plans) doesn't give a crap about overpopulation. Mother Nature (aka evolution) favors those who reproduce as much as possible.

If humanity kills off half the species on the planet because we had too many babies, we've won from an evolutionary species (as long as the human species as a whole survives).

I'm not saying that I'm for this outcome, I'm just saying that Mother Nature is survival of the fittest, and the fit survive by killing off the weaker.

Are you kidding me? Overpopulation has been shown to have a detrimental effect on a population of any given species time and time again. A species overreproduces, consumes too many resources to reasonably sustain their numbers, and several die off. Sometimes all of them die off. Evolution favors rapidly reproducing species only inasmuch as they don't collapse in on themselves.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

Sometimes all of them die off. Evolution favors rapidly reproducing species only inasmuch as they don't collapse in on themselves.

In which the fittest of the group may be the ones who dont need as much food to survive. Survival of the fittest works in many ways.

My personal belief is that homosexuality is related to genes and chemicals in the brain. Evolution would have played a major part in this.

 

[Digital Watches]

In which the fittest of the group may be the ones who dont need as much food to survive. Survival of the fittest works in many ways.

That's a given, but it's hard to argue that overpopulation is universally beneficial to any given species.

Also, penguins have homosexual tendencies.

DEBATE OVER. If penguins are wrong, there's nothing worth believing in.

 

[Tera253]

1. Are you saying that being gay is a crime?
2. Pedophiles and gays have NOTHING in common.
3. So your saying that polygamists, pedophiles, and gays are all weirdoes?

I notice how you didn't mention polygamists, since that at the very least, will happen. And... (numbers correspond to each other)
1. sure, being gay is a crime for all I care.
2. they do have something in common, it's called improper marriage
3. sure, for all I care.

Heh, it's a good thing I'm not taking this thread too too seriously.

~Tera253~

 

[Tera253]

Sorry for the double post, but this seemed worthy of Tera's bold text.

I really wanted to respond to your debate. First, I need to know WHY you clump pedophiles, who aren't even human, (that's your opinion. in mine, gays aren't human) with polygamists. They, like gays, are trying to associate with the wrong type/numbers of people. Moses was a polygamist, so was Abraham in fact he fathered children by both of his wives (Isiah and I-something). it wasn't illegal back then, but it is now. Also, penguins have homosexual tendencies. Is there something wrong with that? No, since we don't make laws that animals have to follow. if we do, then this country/world has really gone to the dogs.

Secondly, the human race is causing its own extinction and homosexuality is mother nature's way (or God's way) (Satan's way) of lowering the population instead of a massive plague or something catastrophic. Nah, that's what war is for. we don't need another factor. A few generations of not reproducing would still leave the earth vastly over-populated. it'll only bee 1 or 2 generatioons of queerity, and then we'd be gone

Finally, I guess you say marriage shouldn't be allowed because it doesn't result in children. What of infertile couples? Should they be banned from marriage? No, because that's not a choice. and, as far as we CURRENTLY see, gay is a choice. testing it is fruit flies means crap, since humans are not related to fruit flies. I'll spectate until they test this in humans. What of couples who are both widows (the bible allows it so) and are too old to have kids? Are they banned from marriage in your utopia? What utopia?

You have to realize, Marriage is a GOVERNMENT title. The churches adopted it to sanction who could and couldn't get married in the eyes of God. Well hey, they were smart enough to take that department over first, weren't they? Now, with that in mind, how can you outlaw something that anyone else has rights to. very carefully

Personally, I think it should remain illegal only because since Christian pay taxes they are funding the marriage licenses (like abortions if that is legal) and they have just as much say in if their money should fund that. I know I wouldn't want my tax dollars funding something I was morally against. Indeed. That's just yet another reason (reason # 356) I'm against it.

Can't wait to hear your reply. there you go.

my, my, that was fun. you all sure are an entertaining bunch.

the verdict: Things like this need to come up much more often.

~Tera253~

 

[The Mad Hatter]

2. they do have something in common, it's called improper marriage

Pedophiles do not marry the kids they molest. You are so wrong that I dont even want to argue.

 

[sheepyman]

Forget it.

 

[Mediocre]

I notice how you didn't mention polygamists, since that at the very least, will happen. And... (numbers correspond to each other)
1. sure, being gay is a crime for all I care.
2. they do have something in common, it's called improper marriage
3. sure, for all I care.

Heh, it's a good thing I'm not taking this thread too too seriously.

~Tera253~

Hey, Tera.

I understand that you think homosexuality is a sin. But do you seriously think that it should be illegal? Do you seriously think that your religious beliefs should play any role in government?

Homosexuality is a practice that doesn't hurt you in any way, just like Mormonism doesn't hurt me in any way. I'm not too keen on either, frankly, but I'd fight for your rights to practice Mormonism just like I'd fight for gay people's rights to practice homosexuality.

If the majority of Americans were morally against Mormonism, would they be correct in making it illegal? I know that it's unlikely to ever happen, but that's basically the situation gays are in.

And before you ask me how I can equate homosexuality with Mormonism, I should tell you that I'm not, really. I'm just wondering why you think that something that doesn't involve you and isn't hurting anyone in the slightest should be made illegal, and if you'd still support that kind of logic if it was turned back on you.

Are you kidding me? Overpopulation has been shown to have a detrimental effect on a population of any given species time and time again. A species overreproduces, consumes too many resources to reasonably sustain their numbers, and several die off. Sometimes all of them die off. Evolution favors rapidly reproducing species only inasmuch as they don't collapse in on themselves.

You're right. I adressed that in my initial post, but it was only one sentence, (and I misstated it a little). I'm aware that overpopulation can potentially kill off a species.

If humanity kills off half the species on the planet because we had too many babies, we've won from an evolutionary species (as long as the human species as a whole survives).

 

[Sargent_Peach]

I notice how you didn't mention polygamists, since that at the very least, will happen. And... (numbers correspond to each other)
1. sure, being gay is a crime for all I care.
2. they do have something in common, it's called improper marriage
3. sure, for all I care.

Heh, it's a good thing I'm not taking this thread too too seriously.

~Tera253~

How can you quote me, and change what I wrote. Does that make sense at all. You cannot post a quote from someone and then change it, even if its just the format.

1. If you think it is a crime, then you should be arguing against homosexuality, and not their right to marry?
2. There is not a country in the world, that gives rights to pedophiles to marry. Some countries, on the otherhand have already legalized gay marriage. Pedophiles will NEVER have the right to marry little children.
3. I think you need to check out the DWYP bigot thread, you might find some "friends" there.
Tera253=BIGOT

How do you bring up the polygamist arguement, when you yourself are morman? Just a little thought, don't take it to seriously

 

[Tera253]

bold=Tera=cool

How can you quote me, and change what I wrote. Does that make sense at all. You cannot post a quote from someone and then change it, even if its just the format. I just quoted part of your post, and put the numbers in for reference. no extra letters were added, and things I didn't quote were removed for simplicity.

1. If you think it is a crime, then you should be arguing against homosexuality, and not their right to marry?
2. There is not a country in the world, that gives rights to pedophiles to marry. Some countries, on the otherhand have already legalized gay marriage. Pedophiles will NEVER have the right to marry little children. Polygamy?
3. I think you need to check out the DWYP bigot thread, you might find some "friends" there.
Tera253=BIGOT Sargent_Peach=gay. you seem a little too 'in' to this.

How do you bring up the polygamist arguement, when you yourself are morman? Just a little thought, don't take it to seriously not taken seriously at all. Polygamy in the Mormon church was removed 117 or so years back, so none of the actual Mormons (splinter groups are different) should be 'marching on congress'.

some people want it for equal rights. you seem like you want it for who they are.
one of many totally bodacious reasons for not watnig it: I don't want my tax dollars going to such a dumb institution.

~Tera253~

 

[Sargent_Peach]

bold=Tera=cool

some people want it for equal rights. you seem like you want it for who they are.
one of many totally bodacious reasons for not watnig it: I don't want my tax dollars going to such a dumb institution.

~Tera253~

You see Tera, thats why you don't know what you are talking about. I doesn't matter what you want, what matters is what is "right". It is simply not right to discriminate agianst someone for any reason. Even if you are morally agianst their lifestyle. I'm sure you don't "morally" agree with people that drink excessively, but that does not mean that they should not be equal under the law of the United States.

No one cares where you want your tax dollars to go, that is up to the government. And what is this "dumb institution" you are talking about?

Sargent_Peach≠Gay, Sargent_Peach's Sister=Gay, and If she wants to marry her lesbian lover, then she shouldn't be discriminated agianst because of overzealous religious fanatics like yourself. Just because you disagree with it, doesn't make it illegal.

 

[Digital Watches]

Aww. I don't get to be berated using shaky-at-best logic and a confusing format? I feel so left out.

 

[Digital Watches]

I notice how you didn't mention polygamists, since that at the very least, will happen.

But I did. It's quite clear that in a society so monogamous as ours, no one will seriously consider giving the same LEGAL benefits for multiple spouses. The system would be far too abusable. However, there are numerous ways in which polyamorous activities are already legal between consenting adults.

And... (numbers correspond to each other)
1. sure, being gay is a crime for all I care.
2. they do have something in common, it's called improper marriage
3. sure, for all I care.

1. Actually, it really isn't. Find me a law within the United States which outlaws homosexuality in general.
2. Because obviously, two fully consenting adults of the same sex are just as sick as an adult and some little naive kid s/he pressured into getting married. By that logic, why are rapists any different from homosexuals? The sex is "improper," right?
3. Now is "weirdo" the legal term, or...?

Heh, it's a good thing I'm not taking this thread too too seriously.

Obviously.

 

[Crimson King]

Tera, do you leave in Utah where backwards logic is still acceptable? Seriously, I have never met someone as sick and depraved about an issue as this. You know, homophobia indicates a fear of being gay and a fear of homosexuals which comes out as hatred.

Tera is a prime reason why democracy does not work. When people like her that are so close-minded in beliefs are allowed to voice their terrible opinions (and sadly there are plenty like her, I call them "hatred educated") we get a world of intolerance like that of 1984, Brave New World, or The Third Reich.

 

[Mediocre]

bold=Tera=cool

some people want it for equal rights. you seem like you want it for who they are.
one of many totally bodacious reasons for not watnig it: I don't want my tax dollars going to such a dumb institution.

~Tera253~

Hello again, Tera. You never answered my question.

Do you really think your beliefs should affect what it's legal for people to do in private? Things which hurt absolutely no one?

If the majority of Americans felt that Mormonism was immoral, would you be fine with them banning it?

 

[sheepyman]

It hurts my feelings that nobody responded to my post.

Guys, seriously, there's nothing we can do about Tera. She's a lost cause. Either because she's very vehemently against or just doesn't know what she's doing, there's a reason she can't properly debate at all, and we should just ignore her until her habits get better.

Just respond to me please ;_;.

 

[Crimson King]

I ignored it because I find people who play Devil's Advocate to be stupid because they have no opinion themselves and just want to prove they are smart by taking the opposite of everyone else. I have enough professors that do that ****.

 

[sheepyman]

It was just getting kind of boring watching people argue against Tera and Marthmaster.

I'm not trying to prove anything, I just think this topic is a complete waste unless someone does the opposite side some justice.

This might as well have been posted in the proom if nobody is actually going to debate in it.

EDIT: And by boring, I meant annoying.

 

[Digital Watches]

I ignored it because I find people who play Devil's Advocate to be stupid because they have no opinion themselves and just want to prove they are smart by taking the opposite of everyone else. I have enough professors that do that ****.

My advice to sheepyman: Take a lesson from the Bigotry debate. If you're going to play devil's advocate, don't say that you're doing it.

 

[sheepyman]

Two posts in the same minute!

Yeah, I won't do it ever again, gotcha. I didn't know it bothered people so much...

I assumed other people would join onto the other side just for the sake of it or something, although I came off as kind of pompous begging for someone to respond to me.