• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

  • No

    Votes: 99 79.2%
  • Yes, explain

    Votes: 26 20.8%

  • Total voters
    125
Status
Not open for further replies.
If all morality is composed of opinion, what is the advantage of treating one's own opinions of morality as anything but fact? Subjective or not, morality is essential to civilized society and the law must exist to enforce these subjective opinions. The only way to effectively attack another person's moral beliefs is to appeal to other, shared, moral beliefs and hope to expose an inconsistency.

I'm not disagreeing with you on this: I would say ALL laws are based, to some degree on morality, but you said it yourself. These are subjective opinions. I may have completely different morals as you. That does not make either of our morals good, bad, or anything in between. However, regardless of what I believe, I must modify my behaviors to fit in with the laws of the society in which I live or accept the consequences of not doing so. Morals are not facts, but subjective opinions that can become practical and logistical procedures.
 
I can never tell if you are being serious, because the things you write are so far out in left field it's as if you don't even understand what we're discussing and are putting forth non-sequitors just to throw us off.

My point is that gays are already allowed to love each other, allowed to have sex with each other, allowed to live with each other happily until they die, etc...

What they are being denied are the inheritance rights, tax benefits, leave from work to take care of their partner, etc... that are denied to me as a single straight male as well.

My argument is that these rights should be available to everyone, not just married people. If I want my best friend to inherit my money, or if I want to receive the same tax benefits that married couples do, or if I want to take time off work to take care of my best friend, why should I be denied those benefits just because my relationship with my best friend isn't a sexual one?

The discrimination here isn't against gays. It is against unmarried people. If we let gays become married people, it will still be discrimination against unmarried people. There won't be any less discrimination just because gays are now on the other side of the caste divide.
 
Last edited:
So your morals are out-of-sync with the Bible. In other words, wrong.:roll:

No, your morals are notning but your opinion, hence valueless as they prove nothing. And since they are out of sync with my morals, they are wrong.

See how easy that was? You have no logic.
 
Oh, and Southern Man... prove that the morals stated in the Bible are both definitive and authoritative... and right :)lol:). Links and research are required. If you cannot, then you demonstrate that you position is nothing but opinion.
 
My argument did not fail any of your criteria and you have yet to demonstrate otherwise. Lets look at them one at a time:

unsound - an unsound argument draws a conclusion from false premises. Here are my premises:

Premise 1: The law should not recognize privileges that are not available to everyone. (note that you have already agreed with this premise)
Premise 2: A marriage license is legal recognition of privileges that are only available to married individuals.
Premise 3: Not everyone is a married individual

Since you have already admitted to the truth of premise 1, demonstrate that premises 2 or 3 are false, or admit that the argument is sound.

unreasonable - an unreasonable argument is one that does not use reason. My argument is reasoned syllogistically, with premises that can be either true or false, and a conclusion that is drawn necessarily as a result of the premises being true. Demonstrate otherwise or admit that the argument is reasonable.

discriminative - My argument is predicated on the premise that the law should not recognize privileges that are not available to everyone. It is therefore not discriminative. Demonstrate how preventing the law from recognizing privileges that are not available to everyone is discriminative, or admit that the argument is non-discriminating.

illogical - an illogical argument is one that does not use logic. My argument is reasoned syllogistically, with premises that can be either true or false, and a conclusion that is drawn necessarily as a result of the premises being true. Demonstrate otherwise or admit that it is logical.

bias - A biased argument lends weight to an opinion based on personal benefit from a desired outcome. Both of the premises that you have yet to agree with are statements of fact, rather than opinions.
Premise 2: A marriage license is legal recognition of privileges that are only available to married individuals.
Premise 3: Not everyone is a married individual

As they are not expressed opinions, they cannot be biased. They are either factually correct, or incorrect. Demonstrate otherwise or admit that the argument is unbiased.

selfish - My argument is a series of premises, and a conclusion drawn logically from those premises. The only premise containing an opinion is the one you already agreed with. The other two are assertions of fact. They are either correct or incorrect. They cannot be selfish any more than any other statement of fact. Saying that 1+1 = 2 is not selfish, because it is simply a statement of fact. Demonstrate how stating facts and drawing conclusions from them is selfish, or admit that the argument is not selfish.

arrogant - A series of premises followed by a conclusion drawn from those premises is not a consciousness of any kind and therefore cannot be arrogant. I might be arrogant, but I am not the argument under discussion. Demonstrate otherwise, or admit that the argument is not arrogant.

hypercritical - A hypercritical argument makes a critique that exceeds standardized criteria to be met. For example if a flight student must maintain altitude within 50 feet, and is then criticized for not maintaining altitude within 10 feet, the instructor is being hypercritical. Demonstrate the standards and how they are exceeded, or admit that the argument is not hypercritical.

and/or anti-american - My argument makes no mention of America one way or the other. Demonstrate otherwise or admit that it is not anti-american.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I didnt even read any of that drivel because there is no need UNLESS you changed your stance and you can just let me know
ddue give up and move on or just admit you are wrong LMAO
the argument is based on legal marriage existing, and since it does why it is wrong to stop gays from having it
YOU, want all marriage to go away, we get Mr broken record LMAO but until that happens you argument is meaningless to the debate at hand

this isnt rocket scientist, as other posters have said you are clearly trolling or just simply dont understand what is going on in this thread and how wrong you are. I hope its that you are trolling because the latter doesn't work out well for you :D it shows you are:sinking: fast
 
If all morality is composed of opinion, what is the advantage of treating one's own opinions of morality as anything but fact? Subjective or not, morality is essential to civilized society and the law must exist to enforce these subjective opinions. The only way to effectively attack another person's moral beliefs is to appeal to other, shared, moral beliefs and hope to expose an inconsistency.

agreed they are HIS morals and thats it and not fact for anyone but him
 
Southern Man, your "argument" fails nearly all the criteria. The premise that the Bible is 100% literally accurate is, aside from being unsupported, highly unlikely. Even if it were, the conclusion you seem to have drawn that gays should be denied inheritance rights, tax benefits, etc... does not follow from your premise unless there is a passage in the bible that says "No nation shall allow gays inheritance rights, tax benefits, etc..." Even then your implied premise that United States policy should be based upon the Christian bible is patently false, as it defies the constitution upon which United States policy is founded.

Argument fail.
 
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I didnt even read any of that drivel because there is no need UNLESS you changed your stance and you can just let me know
ddue give up and move on or just admit you are wrong LMAO
the argument is based on legal marriage existing, and since it does why it is wrong to stop gays from having it
YOU, want all marriage to go away, we get Mr broken record LMAO but until that happens you argument is meaningless to the debate at hand

this isnt rocket scientist, as other posters have said you are clearly trolling or just simply dont understand what is going on in this thread and how wrong you are. I hope its that you are trolling because the latter doesn't work out well for you :D it shows you are:sinking: fast

Since you are having trouble evaluating an argument based on your own criteria, I will help simplify it for you. All you have to do is answer yes or no.

Do you agree that a marriage license is legal recognition of privileges that are only available to married individuals?
 
Normal is a simple statistical relationship: what most people do.

No it's not what "most people do", it's what "most people find it's OK". And it looks like more and more people find it's OK to be gay, that's why it's becoming normal everywhere in Western societies.


Morality is fixed in time regardless of your rejection of it.

Are you talking about christian morality? What about those who are not christian?


The anus is not designed for sex and that type of intercourse is unhealthy.

Why is it unhealthy, and why have you something to say about what other people do with their anus?

Similarly, are we designed to wear clothes or glasses? Are our hair designed to be shaved? Is the skin of women designed to be covered in make up? Since sex seems designed to reproduce, are we designed to have protected, non reproductive sex?

Well I'll answer for you, it's "yes", because we are not animals. We are free and we do what pleases us, including many things that were not "natural" millions of years ago when we were still monkeys, like using make up, clothes, shaving and sodomizing each others.

I don't support a ban on anything, just don't tell children that something is healthy when its not.

You still have to explain us why it is not healthy! Does it bring cancer?
 
Since you are having trouble evaluating an argument based on your own criteria, I will help simplify it for you. All you have to do is answer yes or no.

Do you agree that a marriage license is legal recognition of privileges that are only available to married individuals?

im not having trouble doing anything, if you want to debate a new topic start you own thread doing so and i will gladly answer anything you want in that thread. This thread I want to stay on track and like others have said im not playing your trolling games. LOL

Maybe you arent trolling and really believe what you said but no matter how much you want it to be the same its not, its a different topic. Start your thread and ill gladly join

Thanks:2wave:
 
We do not legislate morality. All I ask is don't lie about it.

That's a bit off topic but what you just said is exactly what these guys from "Sharia4Belgium" say:

YouTube - charia en Belgique - inchallah

"we ask muslims from Belgium not to vote. We do not believe in democracy, because people can not make laws. All laws are already made by allah"
 
The Bible is not my opinion.

It is the opinions of your god, which you have accepted for your own. That makes it your opinion. The fact that other people who worship your god and take their opinions from your Bible makes your particular interpretation of Biblical values even more an example of your personal opinion.

I'm not disagreeing with you on this: I would say ALL laws are based, to some degree on morality, but you said it yourself. These are subjective opinions. I may have completely different morals as you. That does not make either of our morals good, bad, or anything in between. However, regardless of what I believe, I must modify my behaviors to fit in with the laws of the society in which I live or accept the consequences of not doing so. Morals are not facts, but subjective opinions that can become practical and logistical procedures.

Certainly so. But in this case, we're arguing over whose opinions should be upheld as the law. As the law sits, we are currently the ones lobbying for change-- using facts that support the moral opinion we are promoting, based on other moral opinions that we are, at least for the purposes of this argument, treating as facts. For instance, my support for gay marriage is based on my belief that marriage should be the preferred state for adults and that it should be encouraged; in the quote I respond to later in this post, Panache is challenging that belief. Many others, including Panache, argue from the point that the law should not discriminate on moral grounds, a point of view that obviously I do not share.

My argument is that these rights should be available to everyone, not just married people. If I want my best friend to inherit my money, or if I want to receive the same tax benefits that married couples do, or if I want to take time off work to take care of my best friend, why should I be denied those benefits just because my relationship with my best friend isn't a sexual one?

The discrimination here isn't against gays. It is against unmarried people. If we let gays become married people, it will still be discrimination against unmarried people. There won't be any less discrimination just because gays are now on the other side of the caste divide.

Marriage should be the preferred state of adults and it should be encouraged. Marriage promotes social stability and provides needed domestic stability not only for children, but for the spouses themselves. Unmarried people should not expect the legal benefits of married people because they are not participating in the same desirable behaviors.
 
Last edited:
agreed they are HIS morals and thats it and not fact for anyone but him

True, but the same applies to your morals as well. Your belief that homosexuality is acceptable and that homosexual marriage is an acceptable permutation of the institution of marriage, that deserves the same recognition as the forms of marriage currently accepted in our society, is your opinion and it is not a fact for anyone who disagrees with you.
 
Certainly so. But in this case, we're arguing over whose opinions should be upheld as the law. As the law sits, we are currently the ones lobbying for change-- using facts that support the moral opinion we are promoting, based on other moral opinions that we are, at least for the purposes of this argument, treating as facts. For instance, my support for gay marriage is based on my belief that marriage should be the preferred state for adults and that it should be encouraged; in the quote I respond to later in this post, Panache is challenging that belief. Many others, including Panache, argue from the point that the law should not discriminate on moral grounds, a point of view that obviously I do not share.

See, I do not argue gay marriage from a position of morality. There are plenty of facts and plenty of data that show that both marriage itself is beneficial to society, and that gay marriage, too, is beneficial to society. There is a difference between debating a moral position and a position from evidence. I do both, but the moral position, ultimately, is harder to prove, if not impossible, even if one has evidence assisting the position.
 
im not having trouble doing anything, if you want to debate a new topic start you own thread doing so and i will gladly answer anything you want in that thread. This thread I want to stay on track and like others have said im not playing your trolling games. LOL

What others? You are the only one on this thread who has accused me of trolling.

Maybe you arent trolling and really believe what you said but no matter how much you want it to be the same its not, its a different topic. Start your thread and ill gladly join

Thanks:2wave:

It is not a different topic. Your OP asked for a reason for gay marriage to be stopped. I have provided one. I am on topic.

Premise 1: No kind of marriage license should be recognized by the law
------Sub argument for Premise 1------
-SubPremise 1: The law should not recognize privileges that are not available to everyone. (note that you have already agreed with this premise)
-SubPremise 2: Any kind of marriage license is legal recognition of privileges that are only available to married individuals.
-SubPremise 3: Not everyone is a married individual

-.'. No kind of marriage licenses should be recognized by the law

Premise 2: Gay marriage licenses are a kind of marriage license

.'. Gay marriage licenses should not be recognized by the law.

As you can see, the conclusion directly answers your original challenge in the OP, and as such is on topic. You can either try to debate the truth of my premises, or you can try to attack the validity of the logic. Your attempts to evade are transparent.

You have claimed that gay marriage licenses should be recognized by the law. I have claimed the exact opposite, and provided a reasoned argument for why. Your attempts to run away when your own challenge is answered aren't fooling anyone.
 
Last edited:
True, but the same applies to your morals as well. Your belief that homosexuality is acceptable and that homosexual marriage is an acceptable permutation of the institution of marriage, that deserves the same recognition as the forms of marriage currently accepted in our society, is your opinion and it is not a fact for anyone who disagrees with you.

With the language that you used, here, you would be correct. However, I would rephrase. Homosexuality in and of itself is just a different sexual orientation from heterosexuality, not an abnormality, and factually, there is nothing else beyond this statement. Gay marriage differs in no measurable way from straight marriage, and factually, there is nothing beyond this statement.
 
Mine have a basis, yours do not. That was very easy.

You have presented no evidence for your basis, therefore it is valueless... as usual. Let's see it.

That was easy.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom