Homosexuality

[Lights]

Then they should not recognize all marriages.

Hey, uhh lizardbreath, that's what Tipsy is saying.



@ Tipsy - Yeah, I suppose I can agree with that, though that's not a feasible solution. It's never going to happen. As such, I believe if the government is going to continue to give licenses and benefits to heterosexual couples, than homosexual couples should get those same benefits. I can't find any reason why they shouldn't (Bad argument for "tradition of marriage" aside).

But what I was asking is if you believe the marriage--or union--of homosexuals, public or private, would actually cause harm to society. As in, in the extreme sense, causing the "destruction of families and society across America!" Do you believe in anything like that?


Everytime I see this debate I can't help but think about the Daily Show segment on gay marriage. Classic.

 

[Lizardbreath]

Homosexuality cannot cause any harm to society any more than a bee sting would.

 

[Tipsy]

The details in that don't matter, it is the concept that counts.

Let's go with the concept of 'more liberty'. If there is no government regulation of marriage whatsoever it allows quite a lot more liberty and freedom than regulating marriage. By supporting same sex marriage and apparently the concept of civil marriage in general, you are promoting limiting the freedom people should have. So in both concept and detail, in both intent and law, the argument against civil marriage, and in this case, same sex marriage is there.

As for the constitution, I am thankful that it is a living document, and that the people should wake up from their blind ignorant state of being and realize what freedom and equality are, and make a change.

If we are talking about just allowing heterosexual marriages and not allowing same sex marriages, where exactly is the inequality in providing the exact same rights? There is perfect equality between homosexuals and heterosexuals in regards to civil marriage.

If you say so.

You mean, "if Section 8 says so", as I pointed out here:
http://battleforums.com/showpost.php?p=1303329&postcount=103

Oh really tipsy? So all this uproar and court cases on same sex marriage should just be shut out. Right. That makes no sense.

It only doesn't make sense if you ignore our Constitution and laws.

You obviously have no idea about what the government has to do with marriage.

Obviously the Constitution has nothing to do with how our government is run. [/sarcasm]

The government gives tax breaks to married people with children. Oh wait....they aren't allowed to do that anymore according to your ideology. Because the government recognizing "marriages" is an abuse of power. Then they should not recognize all marriages. Your ideas are very close minded.

They aren't allowed to do that anymore? It is they were never allowed to do it. And I must say, since my ideology is following the Constitution here, I guess the Constitution should just be ignored here because we feel like it, after all, it must have been intended to be ignored when inconvenient. If you want to have an argument, you actually need to put something against mine because right now all you're saying is 'the Constitution should be ignored'.

@ Tipsy - Yeah, I suppose I can agree with that, though that's not a feasible solution. It's never going to happen

I don't see how it isn't a feasible solution if people actually begin to think. I stand by my request to have any argument against the public not accepting it:

"Give me any argument that the public could use. Removing marriage from the government appeases both sides of the marriage issue. For the people who want to 'protect marriage' it removes any [what they consider to be] credible organization from having control over marriage and they will be able to 'control' marriage and ignore organizations they do not consider credible. On the other side, people promoting same sex marriage on the basis of 'equality', 'freedom', etc get what they want because with marriage under the control of the people there is complete freedom in marriage - there will be absolutely no restrictions. Polygamous, homosexual, heterosexual, and every type of marriage will be allowed because there will be no restrictions. There can't be more freedom than that."

But what I was asking is if you believe the marriage--or union--of homosexuals, public or private, would actually cause harm to society. As in, in the extreme sense, causing the "destruction of families and society across America!" Do you believe in anything like that?

For civil marriage, homosexual unions cause no less harm to society than heterosexual marriages, this being a reason why I am against both. Also, for people who use the argument that same sex marriage will cause "destruction of families and society across America!" is that the government won't be able to stop [private] homosexual marriages. The government can't change public opinion or culture with a law. The argument doesn't make sense across the board.


As for what I personally believe because of my religion, which I must emphasize holds no legal weight like any other morality argument, is that homosexuality is sinful. I believe that I should tell the person that it is sinful, but beyond that, it is the person's choice whether to commit that sin of not, it is not my job or anyone else's to stop someone from exercising their free will. I guess my reasoning isn't so much that 'it hurts society', but that is hurts the individual who is sinning. To once again emphasize, this is in no way part of my argument against civil marriage because this is completely a matter of opinion that holds no legal weight.

 

[Deanoz]

Let's go with the concept of 'more liberty'. If there is no government regulation of marriage whatsoever it allows quite a lot more liberty and freedom than regulating marriage. By supporting same sex marriage and apparently the concept of civil marriage in general, you are promoting limiting the freedom people should have. So in both concept and detail, in both intent and law, the argument against civil marriage, and in this case, same sex marriage is there.

No I am not.

 

[Tipsy]

No I am not.

Yes, you are.

You are promoting government regulated marriage. Under this, the only groups allowed to be married would any couple of two (male and male, male and female, or female and female). I am promoting the government removing itself from marriage and making it a matter dealt with completely in the private sector. With the government not regulating marriage, there would be no couple, group of people, or whatever combination you can come up with, denied marriage. Keeping civil marriage is keeping an institution that is discriminating against everyone who wishes to marry outside of groups of two, with the exception of groups such as brother and sister, brother and brother, etc. You are promoting limiting the liberty and freedom people can and should have.

I once again state: In both concept and detail, in both intent and law, the argument against civil marriage, and in this case, same sex marriage is there.

 

[Lizardbreath]

If the government had no say in marriage. Than parents would have no say as to what there kids would do. Because there would be disputes as to who could "legally" make decisions for your child. BTW tipsy...your arguments are more based on your own view....

 

[Tipsy]

If the government had no say in marriage. Than parents would have no say as to what there kids would do. Because there would be disputes as to who could "legally" make decisions for your child.

That has already been covered:

You'd have Dick, Jane, Bob, Janet, Lori, and Tyler deciding to marry each other. Years go past, it's all good and well, and someof them have managed to pop off a couple of kids. Things go from happy to bitter. Uh-oh, Divorce!? Now it's not as simple as a choice between two parents. There are six parties (maybe a couple less if some of them decided to pair off) claiming custody. Of course, the genetic parents would be the most prominent, but you'd have Tyler there claiming he has a stable income, has become very close to a/the kid(s), etc. You'd also have the other five, four, or so arguing the same. Child custody battle to the max.

That could be fixed with one [as it would be called] 'landmark' judicial case. It would be 'who has the custody of children'. Since marriage wouldn't be a state institution and would have absolutely no weight in the court of law, it would fall upon the legal guardians of the child only. This would be the biological parents or the legal guardians (which could be limited to two in adoption forms).

There are countless ways to wean it down to two people immediately and then work as it is now from there. The key thing to remember is that 'marriage' would not complicate things because it would hold absolutely no weight in the court of law.

(And incase anyone hasn't read my other posts and is replying to this, this is assuming the state sponsored institution of marriage abolished.)

Though this is dealing with polygamous marriages regarding who has the rights to the child, it can just as easily be applied to marriage between couples because it would be this same example with two people instead of six.

BTW tipsy...your arguments are more based on your own view....

It is my own view, my view just happens to be the same one the Constitution has.

 

[Lizardbreath]

no it's your view of what the constitution should state. Again...I don't agree with it, because I view the constitution differently than you do. I don't view it with a blind eye to society like you do.

 

[Tipsy]

Again...I don't agree with it, because I view the constitution differently than you do. I don't view it with a blind eye to society like you do.[/QUOTE]
Please exactly show me how you're view is better than the one I'm presenting. I want to make it clear, I stating what the legislative powers are based on the broadest possible interpretation of the Constitution. Whether or not it agrees with mine is not the question, I am arguing with the broadest possible interpretation of the Constitution to take out the variable of interpretation.

As for not 'turning a blind eye to society', that is exactly what you are doing by supporting same sex marriage, you are denying the liberties to many people who would have more freedom without government regulation of marriage. Unless your view of turning a blind eye to society it creating one with less freedom in exchange for no positive benefit to society, then you are the one turning the blind eye to society with your interpretation.

 

[Deanoz]

Even 'broadest' is just a point of view.

I don't see how allowing homosexual marriage would limit freedom. Probably because it isn't logical.

This new freedom, would be a start to other new freedoms.

 

[Tipsy]

Even 'broadest' is just a point of view.

It is the broadest possible interpretation that can legally come from the Constitution. The reason I have used the broadest possible interpretation is so that the arguments of different interpretations rendering different outcomes would not effect the argument.

I don't see how allowing homosexual marriage would limit freedom. Probably because it isn't logical.

This new freedom, would be a start to other new freedoms.

Let me make this simple for you.
Government regulated marriage = less freedom.

Unregulated private marriages = more freedom.

It is completely and perfectly logical.

 

[AZN_FLEA]

dude. government regulated marriage seems like an autocratic idea. i dont think america likes any form of communism. although it will do them alot of good.

i am against gay marriages. if we legalized it. then what would ameirca become in a couple of years? a gay country like BFH. that is not desirable becauhse intense sexism would arise and it is not morally right. the moralty in america is bad enough already. please dont bring it down anymore

 

[Laharl]

Yes Flea. Because gay guys being allowed to marry will encourage people to be gay. [/sarcasm]

 

[Xice_God]

i wonder if gay people play blizz games

 

[Laharl]

Yes, we do. By the way, since when was I considered a country? I pledge allegiance to the united states of homoica...?

As Lizardbreath said you have to keep in mind not only the letter of the law, but the true intentions beneath it.

 

[fataldeath1989]

we were crated to love the oppisite sex not the same u dumb bitch

 

[Laharl]

Could you prove that? All I have to do is say that ever since I was young I was attracted to members of the same gender exclusively.

 

[Xice_God]

well, if you enjoy sticking dicks in other males hairy asses, enjoy while u can
we wont interfere i that. just keep playing blizz games, thats what were asking from you here

 

[betaalpha5]

hey guys i need a little help. i'm doin an essay on same-sex marriage and i need reasons why having SSM would have negative impact on children, how it would create more divorces, and why it would encourage "interspecies marriage". thx guys

if you guys know me you know where i stand on this but i still have to acknowledge the other side

 

[Lizardbreath]

Look @ it this way. The fact that we deny people same sex marriages is discriminatory, and thus should be struck down. Also, the argument that marriage is protected because it is used for "Pro-creation" is bullshit. What are the perameters to be set if we don't pr-create the species? What if the couple doesn't want kids whatsoever? Than should they be denied a marriage liscense?