• 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? (PART II)

Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it? (PART II)

  • Total voters
    154
ernst barkmann said:
excuse me ....i did not enter into your discussion, i was address first with questions and i responded, that agent j words reminded me of something that is ALL

so trying to say i know nothing of your discuss is ridiculous, because i have not entered into it here .

so you little exercise of trying to prove me as i know nothing is your own failure here.
Click to expand...

You still don't post valid arguments and you still don't understand the discussion I don't really care that you were in out prior, i am going by your posts.

And you still completely failed to prove your case. And this proves your unwillingness to accept your defeat.

The post i am responding to, your righteous indignation, equally meaningless.
 
Logicman said:
I think what's really happening is that you conveniently preempted the very arguments that you knew you couldn't win, and that bust your argument and position wide open. That God is alive and will Judge the people and nations that engage in institutionalized sexual immorality is the winning argument against gay marriage.
Click to expand...

Is god judging you for your own actions, or for the society you live in? If you don't sin or whatever, but someone near you does, do you really think that you'll be penalized in the cosmic American Idol contest to get into heaven for not stopping that person? Really? I mean, didn't Lot get to leave before his home got hit by the flaming hail or whatever burned the city down? Isn't the whole thing based on how much faith you have? What does that have to do with anyone else? How is it consistent with free will and judgment for how you use that free will leading to judgment if you have to pay for the choices of other people? I mean, if you actually think that your soul is on the line (hint: it isn't), then I can see caring about stopping other people from being gay and marrying and enjoying their lives, but why would you think that?

But that, of course, is my view on the subject!
Click to expand...

Your view doesn't even make internal sense! Arguments about god and your religion being completely made up (hint: they are) don't even need to factor in. The god that you claim cares about our sex lives doesn't hold us responsible for what other people do! Except for killing your children because you did something wrong, but that's because god thinks that children (and women) are property and god is cool with punishing you by destroying your property. But either way, you and your neighbor (barring god-approved slavery) are not each other's property and so neither of you can affect each other's soul meter.

Yes, lots of what you might consider cheap shots. Don't let that detract from the overall message. Even if you believe this nonsense (and it is nonsense), the nonsense you believe doesn't require you to stop other people from doing things that piss god off. It only requires you not to do those things.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Tolerance is a fundamental pillar of our society. It is an absolutely essential element required for millions of people to live together in peace. This absolutely should be taught in schools.

Kids should learn that they should be responsible for themselves, and that what others do, be they homosexuals, heterosexuals, christians, atheists, blacks, whites, etc., is none of their business, as every person has an equal right to our society and of their own way of life.
Click to expand...
I am the one arguing that education should include moral judgment and values.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
There are ways to discuss all of these things without presenting value judgments. Is tyranny EFFECTIVE? What are the results? Why do people resist it? One can teach this information without saying tyranny is good or bad.
Click to expand...
But that is ridiculous. Tyranny is unacceptable because it is a moral evil. If you are not going to teach kids that basic moral fact, then you shouldn't teach them anything at all.
One can discuss the destructive nature of human rights violations, and why they are problematic. Further, stating the current moral culture in the US does not support the behavior of countries like North Korea, does not present values, but a description of values. One can discuss the history of values without making value judgments. That certainly is education.
Click to expand...
But by avoiding the moral issue as to why have rights at all, you are doing an immeasurable disservice not only to the kids you pretend to be teaching, but to the concept of individual rights itself. If you aren't going to teach the moral superiority of the concept of individual rights, you should not address the subject at all.



No, ernst was wrong. If a school teaches that homosexuality is normal, non-dysfunctional behavior, the school is not making a moral judgment. When you say "normal MORAL behavior" you are adding something that I never stated and have clearly commented that I would be against. If, however the school does as I said, and teaches that homosexuality is normal, non-dysfunctional behavior, that is not a moral judgment and I am unconcerned if parents like or do not like that. It's imparting information. If parents believe that information is against their morals and values, too bad. Remove their kids. If, however, morals WERE being presented, I could understand their issue.
Click to expand...
Schools should not be teaching anything at all about homosexuality. It is a political agenda. Not an educational one.
 
douglas said:
I said teaching a standard moral code is worthless, since it will always contradict the moral codes of the majority; it will not contradict with the majority of the morals that the majority believes. Everyone will have one or two points that they disagree with; the problem is that's all that's needed to spark controversy. We've probably filled up several textbooks worth of debate on this one conflicting moral alone.

That said, we all know that morals should be taught and that there is a subset of the range of moral codes that is essentially standard. By itself, this is simply not what anyone would call their moral code, so I don't consider it to be one. But, things like empathy, tolerance, and the golden rule are essential to every moral code I know of. There should be no debate on whether we teach tolerance in school, since it's not a moral that conflicts with any moral codes. We should teach select universal morals in school, and all that stems from them, but not any specific moral codes. For example, it would be wrong to teach Christian morality in school, but I expect the golden rule to be taught in school, even though that is one moral found in the Christian moral code. That's what I mean, if I wasn't clear before; we should teach a core set of morals, but not entire codes. The nuances and specifics of the different codes should be taught at home or in places of worship, where there is no conflict.

There is an inherent contradiction to the Abrahamic moral code that is the source of this debate; you can't teach someone to tolerate human diversity and then teach them to shun people for being different. Since almost all codes contain the first part, and only a few emphasize the second, society should emphasize the first; that creates the minimum of moralistic contradictions.
Click to expand...
I think our disagreement lies in your acceptance of the existence of government schools and my rejection of them. People should be free to send their children to those schools that instill the moral and values that the parents want instilled, not what the state wants them to think.
 
Fletch said:
I think our disagreement lies in your acceptance of the existence of government schools and my rejection of them. People should be free to send their children to those schools that instill the moral and values that the parents want instilled, not what the state wants them to think.
Click to expand...

There's no disagreement here, I support that right. Even now, you have the right to send your kids to a school that teaches creationism and anti-homosexual values, there's no law that says you can't. You're just going to have to pay for it, just as it was before government funded schools were established. If you send your kid to a government school, you are accepting a tradeoff of getting the service for free, but giving up control to the state.

Should the state fund private schools? or Churches? or home schools? You can't have your cake and eat it too; if you want to give your kids a free education, you get what you pay for.
 
Paschendale said:
Is god judging you for your own actions, or for the society you live in? If you don't sin or whatever, but someone near you does, do you really think that you'll be penalized in the cosmic American Idol contest to get into heaven for not stopping that person? Really? I mean, didn't Lot get to leave before his home got hit by the flaming hail or whatever burned the city down? Isn't the whole thing based on how much faith you have? What does that have to do with anyone else? How is it consistent with free will and judgment for how you use that free will leading to judgment if you have to pay for the choices of other people? I mean, if you actually think that your soul is on the line (hint: it isn't), then I can see caring about stopping other people from being gay and marrying and enjoying their lives, but why would you think that?



Your view doesn't even make internal sense! Arguments about god and your religion being completely made up (hint: they are) don't even need to factor in. The god that you claim cares about our sex lives doesn't hold us responsible for what other people do! Except for killing your children because you did something wrong, but that's because god thinks that children (and women) are property and god is cool with punishing you by destroying your property. But either way, you and your neighbor (barring god-approved slavery) are not each other's property and so neither of you can affect each other's soul meter.

Yes, lots of what you might consider cheap shots. Don't let that detract from the overall message. Even if you believe this nonsense (and it is nonsense), the nonsense you believe doesn't require you to stop other people from doing things that piss god off. It only requires you not to do those things.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you don't understand how God works. In some instances people are taken off the earth for simply lying (see Ananias and Sapphira in Acts chapter 5). In other instances the sins of a people (a nation) accumulate over time, and when the "full measure of their iniquity" is reached, then Judgment falls (note Genesis 15:16).

As for Sodom and Gomorrah, there's Biblical evidence they were preached to and warned before they were judged. Sodom and Gomorrah: A Sign of Eternal Torment

America is headed down the same path, but the spiritually-challenged cannot see it. And you can't say with any certainty that (for instance) God's 'hedge of protection" (Job chapter 1) wasn't taken off JFK to the point where he was taken off the earth for his many adulteries. IMO people and nations are still being judged today.

Personally, I don't see America turning toward righteousness. But I do see God slowly but surely turning up the heat on us. America is on a downward slide to oblivion and it's obvious to a great many of us that dire times are ahead of us.

And there's nothing non-sensible about it.
 
douglas said:
There's no disagreement here, I support that right. Even now, you have the right to send your kids to a school that teaches creationism and anti-homosexual values, there's no law that says you can't. You're just going to have to pay for it, just as it was before government funded schools were established. If you send your kid to a government school, you are accepting a tradeoff of getting the service for free, but giving up control to the state.

Should the state fund private schools? or Churches? or home schools? You can't have your cake and eat it too; if you want to give your kids a free education, you get what you pay for.
Click to expand...

You miss the point. I shouldn't be forced to fund government schools then try to come up with the funds to send my kids to private school to get them the education I desire. What you are doing is demand that I pay for something I don't want or need (government schools) then pretend I want something for free (private schools). I am willing to pay for the education I choose, but not for the education I don't choose.
 
CLAX1911 said:
You still don't post valid arguments and you still don't understand the discussion I don't really care that you were in out prior, i am going by your posts.

And you still completely failed to prove your case. And this proves your unwillingness to accept your defeat.

The post i am responding to, your righteous indignation, equally meaningless.
Click to expand...

sorry I did not make a case.

all I ever stated was in essence nobody can say they have all the facts, to themselves..... and no one else with an opposite point of view..... does not have them at all.

so if you state I made a case..................what is it?

I never made one of homosexuality either way.

you keep forgetting...............I am against government force, not two people getting married....
 
Last edited:
Fletch said:
You miss the point. I shouldn't be forced to fund government schools then try to come up with the funds to send my kids to private school to get them the education I desire. What you are doing is demand that I pay for something I don't want or need (government schools) then pretend I want something for free (private schools). I am willing to pay for the education I choose, but not for the education I don't choose.
Click to expand...
I really see what you mean; I can even respect your viewpoint a lot more just because of this post. Go email your congressmen, I agree that people should have that choice. But, just because you can doesn't mean you should. You have the right to teach your child racism, sexism, or homophobia if you want, but it doesn't make it right. I'm truly saddened by the bigots in my own neighborhood, and I'm powerless to change them; we don't need another generation of haters.
 
Logicman said:
Perhaps you don't understand how God works. In some instances people are taken off the earth for simply lying (see Ananias and Sapphira in Acts chapter 5). In other instances the sins of a people (a nation) accumulate over time, and when the "full measure of their iniquity" is reached, then Judgment falls (note Genesis 15:16).

As for Sodom and Gomorrah, there's Biblical evidence they were preached to and warned before they were judged. Sodom and Gomorrah: A Sign of Eternal Torment

America is headed down the same path, but the spiritually-challenged cannot see it. And you can't say with any certainty that (for instance) God's 'hedge of protection" (Job chapter 1) wasn't taken off JFK to the point where he was taken off the earth for his many adulteries. IMO people and nations are still being judged today.

Personally, I don't see America turning toward righteousness. But I do see God slowly but surely turning up the heat on us. America is on a downward slide to oblivion and it's obvious to a great many of us that dire times are ahead of us.

And there's nothing non-sensible about it.
Click to expand...

So you do believe in global warming! :lol:

America is finally turning towards righteousness if you ask me.
 
Fletch said:
I am the one arguing that education should include moral judgment and values.
Click to expand...

And where do you fall in teaching tolerance of all human beings in the classroom? Is this extra morality you want taught religiously based? Or is it somewhat objective like tolerance?

After all, the topic is "do you have a right to stop gay marriage"? I think it's nobody's business what two or more consenting adults do with each other, or the contracts they make.
 
Ontologuy said:
False, and obviously so.

But that you need to keep telling yourself and others over and over and over again that you "debunked" everything I've presented, as if you don't want others to read the posts but just take your word for it, indicates to me that this is purely wishful thinking on your part.
Click to expand...

I HAVE debunked everything you've presented... one by one. Each and every one of your theories has been turned into sawdust by me: shredded and then pulverized. I post information that either refutes the misinformation that you post, or I demonstrate that your OWN information refutes your own point. That's usually my favorite. I show that you have no logic, don't understand or misrepresent definitions, and that you don't understand statistics. EVERYTHING you've posted at DP surrounding homosexuality has been taken apart and shown to be invalid by me. This is just another in the series.

So, now that your invalid statistical analysis has been revealed in ANOTHER thread, how are you going to try to alter the topic this time?
 
Fletch said:
But that is ridiculous. Tyranny is unacceptable because it is a moral evil. If you are not going to teach kids that basic moral fact, then you shouldn't teach them anything at all.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Morals are relative, so assigning a moral value to a situation is individual and personal. Was the US tyrannical in dealing with Native Americans in the early to mid 19th Century? Mexico during the Mexican-American War? Sure. What were the morals surrounding this? Relative and irrelevant to teaching about the situations.

But by avoiding the moral issue as to why have rights at all, you are doing an immeasurable disservice not only to the kids you pretend to be teaching, but to the concept of individual rights itself. If you aren't going to teach the moral superiority of the concept of individual rights, you should not address the subject at all.
Click to expand...

Not at all and identifying that individual rights are morally superior is a value statement. One can present individual rights in the context of the US without placing a value on them and the information imparted will cover the issue completely.


Schools should not be teaching anything at all about homosexuality. It is a political agenda. Not an educational one.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. It CAN be a political agenda, but it is mostly a sex ed issue. It certainly should be taught about and discussed in schools.
 
AGENT J said:
Also for some reference Ill try to list the general reasons people thought of that have been thoroughly debunked.

Religion/god/bible – Meaningless and debunked

Slipper slope argument: I should be able to marry my dog, pedophiles marring children etc. – Ludicrous and debunked

Marriage is between a man and woman – this is a lie/opinion. Meaningless and debunked

Morals – your morals are subjective, shouldn’t be forced on others and your morals aren’t effected one bit, you still get to believe in them as you see fit. Meaningless and debunked

Gay Parents will “turn” their kids gay – LMAO this is also a uneducated fantasy. It has been proven that that children raised by gay parents are no more likely to be or not be gay. It has also been proven that children raised in a multi-parent home on average do better than a single parent home no matter the sex. Ignorant and debunked

Churches will lose their rights – another silly argument that appeals to emotion and could probably be added under the “slipper slope” argument as well. Churches are already protected and will never lose their rights, they discriminate RIGHT NOW against who they want including STRAIGHT couples and will be able to continue to do so under the first amendment. Ludicrous and debunked

Alright heres the most current update and lets have fun!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OFFICIAL COUNTER
how many sound, reasonable, logical, non-bias, non-selfish, non-arrogant, non-hypercritical, non anti-american reason are there to "Stop" gay marriage

GOOD REASONS: 0
Click to expand...


Just some rebuttals to your rebuttals:

Religion/god/bible: There is yet to be a definitive proof against god and therefore none of those three can be considered meaningless or debunked (unless you know something I've never seen, heard or researched)

Slippery slope argument: We've seen it happen before. We all have. Regularly. So as a generally applied principle it has grounds

Marriage is between a man and a woman: Yes it is a foolish way to debate it (like saying someone in court "murdered because they are a murderer"). And yes it is an opinion but there's nothing to state its a lie in any form of the definition.

Gay Parents will "turn" their kids gay: Well if you are arguing with someone that thinks being gay is ok then that isn't a legitimate point. That's why it isn't useful in the debate NOT because it's ignorant.

Churches will lose their rights: It isn't ludicrous. Churches believe homosexuality is wrong and so, yes, they discriminate (please don't make the common assumption that discrimination is all bad. I discriminate by avoiding someone on a dark street who looks like a murderer. That's common sense) and a global legal passing of gay rights would force churches to go completely against what they believe.


I do apologise if any of the above seemed like an attack. That was not intended, I simply wished to point out that the points you made to rebut the rebuttals aren't really all that legitimate.
 
ernst barkmann said:
sorry I did not make a case.
Click to expand...
You attempted to once and failed.
all I ever stated was in essence nobody can say they have all the facts, to themselves..... and no one else with an opposite point of view..... does not have them at all.

so if you state I made a case..................what is it?
Click to expand...
you made one once that it was wrong to teach kids not to discriminate against homosexuals.
I never made one of homosexuality either way.
Click to expand...
look above.
you keep forgetting...............I am against government force, not two people getting married....
Click to expand...

I don't know what force you are referring to.
 
Fletch said:
You miss the point. I shouldn't be forced to fund government schools then try to come up with the funds to send my kids to private school to get them the education I desire. What you are doing is demand that I pay for something I don't want or need (government schools) then pretend I want something for free (private schools). I am willing to pay for the education I choose, but not for the education I don't choose.
Click to expand...


You could live on government purchased food, yet you chose to buy your own even though the government pays for food stamps. You could live in housing provided by the government, section 8 housing. Yet you chose to live elsewhere. You don't ask for your tax money back that you payed for government housing or food stamps why should public school have a special exemption?
 
Last edited:
CLAX1911 said:
murder being against the law ha nothing to do with religion.

Nice try indeed.
Click to expand...

I said related to a religion. Apparently you don't know the 10 commandments. That makes murder being wrong related to a religion whether you want it to be or not.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
I said related to a religion. Apparently you don't know the 10 commandments. That makes murder being wrong related to a religion whether you want it to be or not.
Click to expand...

Prior to the ten commandments there were laws against murder.

It isn't religious David I am sorry.
 
douglas said:
America is finally turning towards righteousness if you ask me.
Click to expand...

I would hope so but I don't see it.

Are you talking about biblical righteousness or secular-minded 'righteousness'? Example(s) please.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Prior to the ten commandments there were laws against murder.

It isn't religious David I am sorry.
Click to expand...

Once again you said RELATED to a religion. That means connected in any way. Murder definitely is. As well is lying, we call it perjury in the legal system. And the first murder was Cain and Abel and guess who judged that and made that law? God, THEREFORE yes it is religious.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
Once again you said RELATED to a religion. That means connected in any way. Murder definitely is. As well is lying, we call it perjury in the legal system. And the first murder was Cain and Abel and guess who judged that and made that law? God, THEREFORE yes it is religious.
Click to expand...

No it's not religious. Laws against murder predated the Bible.

First law against murder appeared in the code of Ur-Nammu. Sorry, not religious.

God didn't make murder against the law, sorry David. He simply punished Cain for it. It wouldn't be until Moses that a law was made.
 
Last edited:
CLAX1911 said:
No it's not religious. Laws against murder predated the Bible.

First law against murder appeared in the code of Ur-Nammu. Sorry, not religious.

God didn't make murder against the law, sorry David. He simply punished Cain for it. It wouldn't be until Moses that a law was made.
Click to expand...

You just proved my point, it was God's law.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
You just proved my point, it was God's law.
Click to expand...

no, it first appeared on the code of Ur-Nammu.

Since the Bible was written by man, it was always mans law.

Religion simply being a creation of man in the first place your point is really rather moot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom