The debate "Homosexuality should be prohibited" was started by
October 14, 2015, 5:22 am.
45 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 139 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
xander1965 posted 7 arguments, Alex posted 14 arguments, Dysfunctional posted 1 argument, HRPufnStuf posted 7 arguments, jjrocks1738 posted 10 arguments, SimplyHuman posted 1 argument, Dctheentrepreneur posted 4 arguments to the agreers part.
historybuff posted 29 arguments, PsychDave posted 6 arguments, Sosocratese posted 5 arguments, omactivate posted 5 arguments, pajrc1234 posted 1 argument, lexham posted 10 arguments, Wookie posted 1 argument, jjrocks1738 posted 3 arguments, WaspToxin posted 3 arguments to the disagreers part.
xander1965, Dysfunctional, stevenchen, debaterjr, sowhat, ezza16, MasayaIchimaru, SimplyHuman, Dctheentrepreneur, peacock, tata and 34 visitors agree.
Safooma1977, Sosocratese, sidhant, omactivate, Yuki_Amayane, ScorpionHan, WaspToxin, Skeetc15, wayneSPEC, RedScorcher, awzain, true_debate_life, Pikachu, Sumerian, pajrc1234, jayz11, srishti_pinkleaves, sophistry, action007man, TheChosenProphecy, Tristanzee, Cherryblossomcat, Apollo8, zoeclare7, adreonnasky, lexham, lawyer_to_be, Wookie, andy91, xbulletwithbutterflywingsx, Sally, bearunter, Gabri_XO, Picassota, esoo717, jjrocks1738, sloanstar1000, waynemc15, SocialCrusader, numbskull, truth_vs_true, Phemelo, emma001, Godfather98, akshay58165, invincible_01, swp16, AngryBlogger, Peypey, llemponen and 89 visitors disagree.
well luckily we don't live in a country where religion has anything to do with creating laws. people have the freedom to do things even if your version of Christianity doesn't like it. saying something is against the Bible is not an acceptable argument for banning it. especially since we have pointed to lots of other things that are banned in the Bible (mixing two fibres in clothes, planting two crops in the same field) that are just stupid.
Just so we know how to frame our arguments, which version of Christianity do you believe?
Yes we had laws before Abraham Issac and Jacob. The thing is the laws don't save you the relationship with god and his son does (read Romans 3:20-31). No one is good(perfect) except GOD-Mark 10:18. Its the faith that saves you. "Religious based morality"? Religion IS morality. Its subjective to what you believe is right or wrong. We all have things we believe in that we can't prove or that's subjective so we all have a religion/morals/faith even atheists. My religion happens to be of the bible. When you read it you should always consider the content and the context of the scripture or it could seem bad or contradictory. If you want to learn let me know. PS. being a homosexual is not bad in a subjective world but when the god of the bible is the standard its totally wrong. That's why homosexuals and justifiers have to try and discredit the good book.
Debating could be beneficial or detrimental depending on the goal in mind for the people debating. steel sharpens steel but also steel punctures flesh.
Hitler was not a christian. That's like saying anybody can be president. No you have to meet certain requirements. I can run around telling people I'm going to be president in 2020 but a smart person would know i was lying because I'm only 23. If you read the bible you would have known not to make an ignorant statement like that.
There is no such thing as over population. There is a such thing as over crowded in one area. Its a Fact that you can fit everyone in the world side by side in a city called Pensacola Florida now look that up on a map. People just need to spread out. NO one should be gay it's not natural.
Actually, I think you'll find this thing called "over population", which is gradually wasting away all of our resources and materials. Gay people, since they cannot have children naturally, are more likely to adopt and take in a child whose parents abandoned them, died, or some other reason. This is also good, because there are less homeless children, and less people taking up the population of the planet.
He can choose to marry the woman, but he won't be in love with her.
Are you saying that all people of no religion are evil? well, Hitler was a Christian, and does that make him any less evil? no, not at all.
Haha, debating never goes anywhere. I'm never going to change your mind on the subject. I'm under no illusion of that. Debating is a purely selfish activity.
i am aware that i probably should continue debating but i can easily see this is going nowhere.
Sure.....that's the point of debates...
can we agree to disagree
um i really dont have time to waste explaining all this in the end i believe im going to have to answer to god and so will you i informed you to the best of my ability up until now i have more i can say but i really dont feel like it historybuff and sosocratese have a nice life hope to see you in other debates. Sorry historybuff i accidently deleted the last message i had to you. im really mad about it. i basically said i dont judge gays because i am not perfect i hate judgemental people and i cant sin more than anyone else because god sees all sins the same.
We had laws against murder well before we had abrahamic doctrines. It's almost an insulting claim to us as a species to claim that we couldn't come up with a legal system that respects people's rights and liberties without the use of religion. In fact, I'd argue that religious based morality is some of the poorest morality out there. I would even contest that you don't abide by abrahamic rules. Do you eat shrimp? Do you not touch your wife when she has her period? Do you intend to stone those who work on the sabbath? Do you think it right to kill every man, woman, and child of a village which doesn't believe in your version of God? I could go on, but I think you get the point. Most religious people cherry pick the holy scriptures in order to make them conform to their own ethical standard.
I doubt that you'd be in favor of a lot of the things described in leviticus, Genesis, revelations, or even deuteronomy.... I mean would you actually advocate that a woman who is raped should be forced to marry her rapist without the ability to ever leave him?
There are also a plethora of secular ethical philosophies which come to many of the rules one would value from religion. Social contract theory provides a great reason why we ought not to murder, steal, rape, etc... without the crutch of religion.
also excuse any grammatical errors I am actually kind of intelligent but i just didnt really care
You're line of reasoning is very flawed as it pertains to claim made. You're agreeing that homosexuality should be prohibited. You're using a religious argument in order to justify this stance so you're advocating that religion ought to be the rule of law.
If that is the case, you must also be advocating for banning clothes with mixed fabrics, you must advocate for no one working on the sabbath (this would have to include doctors, etc...), you must in fact be advocating for some very harsh punishments for defying such laws as these are also described in the Bible...given that homosexuality isn't mentioned once in the new testament, you must therefore be advocating for the laws of the old testament. This places you in a very difficult position as many of the rules given in the old testament are absolutely abysmal and grotesque.
You may believe that homosexuality is a sin, and you may believe that it is wrong or whatever you like, but arguing for its prohibition based on a religious text is to argue for using religious texts as a basis for the rule of law. How is this any different than sharia law?
then you don't need to discriminate against them. god will judge them. you are sinning more than they are. Jesus comanded you to love everyone. you are directly going against the teaching of Jesus. there is nothing about homosexuality in the new testament.
listen i didnt make the rules of the bible. God did. he sees all sins as sins at the end of the day.
lots of things don't benefit the human race. that isn't grounds to prohibit them. America is founded on personal freedom. just because something might not benefit humanity doesn't mean you can supress other people's rights. especially when there is no evidence it harms humanity either.
Homosexuality does not benefit the human race.
again. murder is very rarely an important part of a person's identity. who thinks of them self as murderer in the same way they would see them self as a man, or an American. murder is not a defining feature of a personality, unless you're psychotic. but i hope you aren't trying to compare gay people to psychotic serial killers.
??? A baby's libido hasn't fully manifested yet. How does one make such a leap?
if you dont think lying is a good comparison then why dont we compare it to someone who murders being a murderer is more close to someones identity.
ummm okay whatever but i dont see babies looking sexually at other babies at that age either sooo???
no one is born a liar. babies can't speak. they generally become a liar at some point. but lying is very rarely important to someone's identity. no one identifies themselves as a liar as they would male or female. a liar isn't who they are. someone's sexuality is very important to who they are. it is at the core of human nature. comparing lying to your sexuality is a weak comparison at best.
everyone is naturally born a liar and you cant prove they arent until you show me someone who has never lied. really? and yes it is part of who we are jesus made us born sinners if we were perfect we would be him.
except you weren't born a liar. Lying isn't part of who you are. being a homosexual is a part of who they are.
ok and they choose to do what makes them more comfortable just as i would when i lie but obviously you will never agree i give up.
they could choose not to do homosexual acts. they cant choose to stop being a homosexual. they are still a homosexual, they are just pointless being miserable to try to live by rules others put on them.
i am christian and my church says that gay is against the bible. (notice i didnt say gay people.) jesus clearly said in the bible that he wanted man to multiply with
women. i dont know the exact verse but when i find it i will tell you. for a lot of those rules in the old testament that seem ridiculous a lot of times jesus said things that symbolized a bigger meaning. you are absolutely correct when you say jesus told us to love everyone including gay people because no one is perfect. the bible clearly says dont judge but that doesnt mean that gay is okay. although it is no worst than the multiple times i have lied. God sees these sins equally and he would want us to tell them in a loving way instead of hatefully how he feels about their sexuality. and they are fighting for their rights like we are but one was for their skin color and one was for being gay (aka a sin) in the end they can choose not to be gay the same as i can choose not to lie. i literally cant hide my skin color. they may still be attracted naturally to their same sex but i naturally feel the need to lie sometimes. that doesnt mean we cant choose not to.
I can see how some people might make that association. black people had their rights suppressed by government for a long time, some would say they still do. they had to fight for their rights just as gay people are now. it's not a great comparison but I can see how people would make it.
I'm going to assume you are Catholic, if I'm wrong please correct me, because many Christian sects don't resist homosexuality the way the Catholics do.
The church believes being gay is against Christianity, many Christians do not. there is no evidence Christ thought that either. the only biblical reference is in the old testament. it also says to kill those who wear clothes with 2 fabrics and to kill those who plant two crops in the same field. these rules don't make any sense any more. they were never espoused by Jesus who told you to love everyone. there is no reason to dislike or supress the rights of gays except that the church tells you to, which is not a good reason to discriminate as it is correctly contrary to what Jesus taught.
i actually feel quite bad for them sometimes but can you try to understand the weird position i am in.
alright i guess i see what you are saying everyone has rights i dont think they are discriminating against me It just almost seems like they are saying being black is the same as being gay in a way. Im not saying you do but please dont think i hate gay people i love everyone but idk how i can be christian but believe something opposite from my religion.
every person has rights. how is comparing their rights to yours offensive? they aren't trying to discriminate against you.
homosexuality is a sin according to the bible so since i am a black christian it is offensive to compare my rights to gay rights.but i already know no one cares
To the 30 odd people that agreed to this discussion... why don't you get on with your own lives without having to "have your say" about their lives.
I will just bring this fullcircle. It is up to the legislatures to decide this issue as there is no reference within the constitution to strictly advocate for it. Our guide is the 9th amendment, notbthe Supreme Court.
I refuted your point. Blacks and and women were defended under the Constitution. Remember there is framers intention and amendment intention. Both are Constitutional. There is no Constitutional defense for marriage to be a right. Neither in the 5th or 14th amendments based on intention and contextual thought.
just because the founding Fathers couldn't predict the social changes hundreds of years into the future doesn't mean that those changes should be resisted. the bottom line is that gay marriage doesn't hurt a single person and it helps lots of people. other than its different than it used to be you haven't given any argument, let alone a legitimate one.
"Who hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal". Women should be able to vote because voting was given to us as a basic right. Blacks should be free, they are also apart of mankind. Conveniently each are apart of the Constitution. No part of the constitution was written in expectation of gay marriage
so your only complaint is that something changed? social change doesn't stop. a few decades ago women couldn't vote. a few centuries ago and America imported slaves. society changes all the time. so saying that it is legitimate to resist something only because it is different is rediculous. if there isn't some harm done by the change then there is no reason to resist it. especially when there is good being done by the change.
My complaint is legitimate to the point that it is a breach upon tradition and the thought of heterosexual marriage. I fear a judicial interpretation of the latter
so it doesn't effect you in any way at all. it doesn't effect anyone who is complaining about it. to me that is not a legitimate complaint. that is someone fearing change. if it doesn't harm you or anyone else how is your complaint legitimate?
My complaint is that it is not the traditional institution of marriage
but you want to stop people from getting married without a legitimate complaint. it doesn't affect you in the slightest. other than you don't like it, you have no real complaint at all. so by your logic they should be allowed to marry whomever they want.
You called me a bigot racist and bigot... There is no right to something that has been nonexistant. There is no liberty afforded to an individual by the government. This is made evident by the resounding influences of the framers. We are not entitled to tax cuts, but we are protected from fines without due process. We are protected from the government depriving us from normality in normal conditions. By this i mean i cant be held in jail without due process. I cant be told i may not leave my house on a holiday. i cannot be told not to do something without LEGITIMATE complaint.
I don't have a devotion to the government. and nothing i have said should lead you to think that. I haven't commented on the government at all. you are engaging in the classic conservative strategy of "if you can't beat em', slander em". you can't refute my arguments so you try to undermine my character.
you say you have no ill regard toward homosexuals but you still want to deny them a basic right. a fundamental part of life. not to mention the numerous tax, insurance, inheritance and many other parts of marriage as well. that tells everyone that you do have I'll will toward homosexuals.
What radical Islam doesnt want to kill homosexuals or Christians now? That is a shocker because they are doing it right now. If im a racist/bigot, you sir are a liberal and do not believe in natural rights. You have a devotion to the government to receive your rights and entitlements. You dont believe we have rights, but rather merciful allocations given to us by officials. I have no ill regard toward homosexuals, just their pursuit of marriage. I dont agree with it, but i still tolerate it.
just because others have done bad things doesn't make the bad things you advocate any less despicable. at least those examples are minimum 60 years ago. you want to discriminate and suppress rights today.
Precisely. I have lost but so have you. I hope that you are familiar with court law and may see the ridiculous jurisprudence of the Supreme Court within homosexual marriage. I hope that you may soon find issue in a policy-deliberating Supreme Court for this is not their intention. They are not to determine constitutionality on every law, but only with proper legal standing. Their interpetation of this was based on interpetation of society (I daresay state they are legislating) by the unelected cross section of America as lawyers from concentrated areas.
Furthermore as a Conservative, I would like to apologize for finding conflict with my oppositional party. They are the true patriots for rights as they fought the Union to enslave and oppress blacks. Under the great FDR, they released an executive order to intern Japanese Americans. I apologize for my stance against allowing terrorists to enter the US and murder homosexuals because they do not tolerate it.
you're right. you are a racist and a bigot. I'm glad you see that. at the end of the day your views on this don't matter. the debate got settled by the supreme Court. marriage is Constitutionally protected for everyone. you don't get to discriminate about who is allowed to get married based on your antiquated belief systems.
I would also like to point out that this argument is purely circular because I cannot defend distortions of my incompetent speech.
My apologies for not knowing my mind better than you, and furthermore that I am to incompetent to maintain any logic if itnis in opposition to an emotional argument. Your argument is a strawman as you have attacked your argument that you gave to me. I never said there was no way to obtain children for homosexuals. That is purely what you said. I said that purely by their OWN ACCORD HETEROSEXUALS MAY NATURALLY HAVE CHILDREN AND THAT THIS IS NOT THE CASE FOR HOMOSEXUALS AS THEY CANNOT SO IT ON THEIR OWN. But wait, what of one is a scientist... I said marriage is a creation of human need to procreate. This does not limit love. One may love his girlfriend, but marriage is not required to continue this love.
You have fabricated my argument to include that marriage is currently between a man and a woman and they must procreate. I said that this is from whence marriage came as an institution. Therefore it is between a man and woman as a direct result of its context.
So yes I will thoroughly enjoy my despicable archaic ideology because I believe that humanity has retained its rights throughout history. I will be a bigot because I dont believe in creating new rights to establsih government domination. I will be a racist, because I care about or national security against all who wish to harm us.
You should seriously google up what a strawman is but i kinda have to go to this Korean grill with my girlfriend so I'll speak my final two cents. (Yes, im straying now i admit to it myself but im cutting to the beef (as i will also do so soon)). The government is created to benefit and protect the people. Marriage in historical context, as you said, was a social tool to climb the social ladder, have more workers working the farm.. but not much about love, i believe. Thus, you present your claim, correct? But in this modern age of over population and job scarcity and scarcity in general ... is it neccesary to marry for those reasons? I'll tel you now. it's not. So now, we have even more time for romantics and marrying for love. Long gone by to the Western world are days of arranged marriage. Have you met someone recently who went, "yeah im marrying so i can have kids" ? Not really. But what we have heard is inccesant talk about love and romance and soulmates. which leads to my very main point. If were marrying for love, the why dont we let others, who are not like us, marry for love? Is the love between a heterosexual couple more because they can procreate? im pretty sure i know a couple high schoolers who are repulsed by that rather than riled up over their heads. Is it not love that fuels LGBT+ couples and their constant pursuance of equality? A bit of romanticization but i dont have time to argue this circular debate any further. enjoy your millenia-old social roles (or rolls, hah, i really want food now) , sir.
Obviously some seek to harm homosexuals for their conduct. As for me, I believe they are responsible for their own actions to do however they please. The problem is that this has led to a breach of traditional marriage and is a result of redefining an institution to incorporate two of the same gender.
I am saying that homosexuals are not kept from marriage simply because they are homosexuals. It is rather since they desire to marry another of the same gender. Therefore it is not against sexual orientation, but rather the issue lies in the idea that two of the same gender cannot marry. The homosexual aspect is incidental.
I honestly do not know how to distinguish historical context and its application to modern ideology beyond this. Heterosexual marriage finds its roots within this idea of procreation and from this marriage is traditionally between a man and woman. You have twisted my argument beuond recognition (ie the strawman). Yes homosexuals can have a family with modern technology. That was not the premise of my argument and I refuse to refute accurate claims.
As for women procreating alone: is it or is it not the same as heterosexual couples? Do heterosexuals definitively need outside assistance to procreate? That was my premise for a fallacy of equality. Please answer my question as you will understand my premise of fallacy.
I believe I address your issue of slavery in my response to dave.
Forgive me but I must ask for clarification. Are you saying homosexuals can choose to be heterosexual? Are you saying let's take, a gay man. Are you stating that a gay man can choose to marry a woman to preserve societal tradition?
I apologize for a discrepancy in my argument: William Blackstone not Blackmore. English lawyers all have the same name!
I also want to address your claim that "homosexual marriage is not a case o descrimination". Are you sure? There are hundreds upon hundreds of deaths each year and many more cases of the abuse and descrimination of LGBT+ couples because of who they are. The abuse ranges from physical and gory assaults to those of mental and emotional abuse. One does not have to look very far to see blatant proof of this descrimination against them. Is this descrimination not similar to those people of color face ? Do we, as a society not deem it brutal, violent, and outlandish to treat people of color in this way? Yet, LGBT+ people are being denied job oppurtunities, living situations, and medical rights because of who they are and who they choose to love. Are you really sure denying them marriage is not a direct product of descrimination by society?
Upon account of the idea of choosing to have children: marriage and children do not have to be guaranteed. The fact is that marriage was established for the purpose of children, and the traditional view of a man and woman comes from this. This point may be mute depending on your view of Constitutional law depending on whether or not you advocate judicial restraint or activism, yet I will proceed. Upon rights denied, liberty is freedom of bondage by concrete definition. Or as the framers had it (as they were intellectuals by Locke, Blackmore, the Magna Carta, etc), it was a defense from government so that they could not infringe upon your rights to act in normal circumstances (you cannot be barred from walking the streets on presidents day). In no way is liberty a guarantee of recognition nor benefits of the government. This is a legislative decision, and unanimous entitlement is not liberty.
To your point that homosexuals may have artificial semenation or other means of having children: the two in union cannot procreate as heterosexuals do and therefore cannot be deemed equal for the sole purpose that one may have children in union vs outside assistance.
The final assumption you make is that this issue is one of discrimination of sexual orientation. This is false since a homosexual man may marry a heterosexual woman. They are both homosexual, yet they seek the tradition of marriage. My premise is that two of the same gender are not discriminated against over sexual orientation, but rather they as members of the same gender cannot.
When will you stop using contradictions? First you mention that, " marriage was created for the purpose of producing children" then you mention explicitly how they dont always have to procreate. Furthermore, you mention how the LGBT+ community can not pro create but everyone on this app seems to forget that the T in LGBT is for transgender and that transgender people can procreate. That is not accounting for the fact that science has advanced so far that women can procreate without men (the only drawback that the product of such procreation is that the child can only be female). This invalidates your claim that homosexuals cannot become your neat and glorified "established family". One you justify by saying that societal norms then and now back up this claim. However I have already addressed this issue with my analogy to slavery you apparently glossed over becauae of your flawed definition of a common logic fallacy.
Your argument is inherently flawed in that it still has not addressed the fact that some heterosexual couples cannot or choose not to have children. It also fails to address the fact that there are numerous legal, financial and institutional benefits to marriage that have previously been denied to same sex couples.
You also mistakenly believe that same sex couples can not have biological children, in spite of the fact that this has explicitly been addressed already through the use of reproductive technology that is available.
There final flaw I will point out in your argument is that you assume, with no justification, that sexual orientation is not a part of identity. Unless you can choose to be gay, it is hypocritical to say that gay people could choose not to be.
I brought up procreation for the sole purpose to show the inequality of institutions. Historical definitions provide context for why it has l existed today.
Im regard to your rebuttal, I was providing background for how marriage was seen within American society, to bear children. Obviously you may not have children, but the institution persisted between a man and woman. I am saying that bearing children does not mean marriage, yet the two are not mutually exclusive.
This is what I mean. You took the idea that homosexuals cant procreate and built your idea around the fact that they can children. I sought to say that they cant procreate and therefore cannot be equal to heterosexuals. Understand this point for what it is. Two men cannot impregnate one another nor two women. This is the difference between typical heterosexual marriage (also the gender differentiation). Marriage was created for the purpose to unite a man and woman in order to produce children. This too is undeniable. Therefore marriage as an institution is between a man and woman out of tradition of its existence, its sole identity. Obviously you do no not need to have children, yet the standard of a man and woman is irrevocable since this is from what it came. It isnt archaic, it continues to be social norm.
Now the point of slavery. Nobody deprives marriage to homosexuals because of their identity, but rather for what they seek. Liberrt was denied to blacks for the sole reason of discrimination, the thought that they were subhuman. Homosexual marriage is not a case of discrimination, its a case of creating rights which no man is responsible for.
You're straying from the point, everyone knows they can adopt. Were talking about how much you value the established family with two married parents. Were talking about how a married homosexual couple is closer to an established nuclear family than a single parent with a child is.
Im referring to the fact that they can adopt. That is undeniable... You cant argue that.
You criticize my analogy but fail to see that by admitting you can form a family as a single parent without the marriage that bonds an "established family" you contradict your previous argument. You claimed the established family must be followed as a core of civilization yet now you are trying to invalidate the importance of marriage. I am not saying one must have two parents. But your argument SUPPORTS homosexual marriage since you are using the nuclear two-parent 18th century definition of a family. If you validate a single parent with a child a family, then how more so /two/ parents with a child? Is that not closer to your "established family"?
You may want to look up the definition of a strawman argument. Lexham was using slavery to illustrate that not all traditional beliefs are justified or morally sound. Your failure to understand his argument does not make it a strawman argument.
"Nobody believes homosexuals are lesser" is blatantly false. They are called abominations among other names.
Please stop using strawmen arguments... Slavery has nothing to do with this. That was discrimation based on race and race alone. They were being kept from locong based on identity, not because they wanted anything beyond tradition. Nobody views homosexuals as lesser, but rather they pursued a fallacy. You also continue to argue that homosexual couples can adopt, have surrogate mothers, or be artificially impregnated. I myself could be a single parent and raise an adopted child. All of this possible without marriage because I cant marry myself. Furthermore you claim that great philosophers defend you, yet those of whom i follow are the direct influences of our nation.
you say that "family was the core of civilization". Your claim is that children are needed to form a family which is, in itself, faulty. Several great philosophers have commented on the fact that the bonds of friendship and companionship are greater than blood. Furthermore, your claim makes it so that ALL couples who cannot produce children are faulty and do not contribute to civilization. Thus, you are saying that a sterile heterosexual couple who adopts a kid cannot be a family since you are insinuating that an LGBT+ family who adopts a kid does not meet your standards of the nuclear "traditional" family. That is besides the fact that you blatantly ignored modern lesbian couples who can have a child through assisted medical insemination or a gay couple having a surrogate mother. Finally, your matter concerning a traditional, primal ideology of family and social group is an outdated and defenseless one. We know today that slavery is wrong, inhumane, and unnatural. In accordance to your evidence that seems to look on how people lived in the past, slavery is justified and correct. In conclusion, i do not believe your claim to be well rooted and your evidence should be of more substance than "that's how we used to do it"
I said that heterosexuals procreate. Homosexuals NEVER can. Therefore they CAN'T be equal. That is NOT opinionated but rather logical. Im saying that the tradition of the world is heterosexual since many influences at the time of the framing believed thay the family was the core of civilization. HETEROSEXUAL marriage is therefore the established marriage. Homosexuals sought a fallacy in marriage, but the Supreme Court continues this fallacy.
we told you how homosexual couples can either have or adopt children. I don't see a difference between a homosexual couple's ability to have children and that of an infertile couple. neither can procreate. but you aren't suggesting we bar infertile people getting married so clearly you are only using that as an excuse and you don't care if a married couple has children.
Can you not see that they are not the same though??? There is no difference? One wss established for the pupose of raising children and is therefore tradition. As far as benefits go, that was decided in The US v Windor in attempts to challenge section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act. This section of the act gave Congress the ability to pass legislation in accordance to heterosexual marriage. Homosexuals in various states could be married, but they did not have to be accepted by other states (section 2). The opinion of the court argued that people are entitled by the government to certain benefits that marriage provides. This sense of liberty is erred since liberty upon our founding was freedom from bondage or negative liberty meaning the government cannot take liberty from you. Now defining marriage for the purpose of legislation serves just the purpose as definitiona of age for social security and medicare. Yet nobody cries wolf for age discrimination.
Adoption is possible, as is in vitro fertilization. There are methods for same sex couples to have children. To say that since they can't procreate they cannot marry you must also say that people who are infertile should be barred from marriage. Otherwise you are being hypocritical.
Beyond procreation itself there are legal and financial meanings to marriage. Life insurance, tax benefits, child custody, and many other things. To say that gay people are not entitled to these benefits is why it is discrimination.
Im telling you that the two are incomparable. Show me how two of the same gender procreate, and I will concede. The fact is that they cannot and therefore cant be equal to heterosexual marriage.
so what youre saying is that the goal of marriage is to procreate? What then, of heterosexual couples who don't want children and are romantocized by society? Should they not be allowed to wed either? And while we're talking about procreation, and having children, did you know that the number of LGBT couples who are trying to adopt a child far outnumber the number of children in orphanages? Is it not better for them to be adopted? Is the number of children in orphanages not enough? Are resources not stretched between them too thin? Why then
do you cling to procreation so desperately?
Its not discrimination against homosexuals. Is it bigotry to say thst two men or women cant marry. Its an issue of gender. The two also cannot be equal since one allows for procreation. How then is marriage which follows the latter tradition open to be reinterpreted as homosexual. Beyond rhat I have no issue with homosexuals outside the scope of marriage.
not too mention that if youre talking about this in a political manner, LGBT+ marriage actually helps the economy (via marriagse license etc) and there are absolutely no drawbacks to LGBT+ marriage that aren't "my religious books says so". You simply cannot suppress an entire population because of the bigotry of a few.
Those of you who are so dead set against homosexuality and gay marriage, I think you need to take a long hard look at your own sexuality, as it seems you aren't comfortable with your own sexual choices if it bothers you so much.
Ill make is concise. Obergefell v Hodges was decided by...
-Marriage tradition has changed.
----SCOTUS deliberates what is written in the Constitution, not traditions. That is legislative and the SCOTUS is not a very good representation. Also 14th written during time of heterosexual marriage.
-Government gives liberties
----Under Locke, Blackmore, Magna Carta, sense of negative liberty not government giving liberty. Influences of our government and influences of definition (if not liberty from bondage without due process).
-Dignity of individual stripped without marriage.
---- Founded under enlightenment tradition that dignity is inherent. The government cannot take it away or give it. Slaves retained human dignity despite governmental sanctioned bondage.
you literally cannot make an assumption based on statistics when we are still living in a world where most people are closeted. at this point youre just pulling percentages out of thin air thus invalidating your claim : /
And really, why would anyone agree? These people are humans too, and they get to have equal rights. If you were to take it away, you would be dehumanizing them.
Homosexuality is not only a form of sex, it is a form of love, and it deserves RESPECT for that reason.
We're not asking you to be gay. If we all were, like you said, humans wouldn't survive. We're just asking you to let them be human and normal.
People are able to give consent, animals are not. Basically anyone who has sex with an animal is raping it. Unless you are claiming that gay people are either nit human or not capable of giving consent, your argument is invalid.
no, because animals have no idea that you love them and naturally they are not humans making that totally unnatural because animals should be with their own kind
Does it hurt anyone if u love an animal the way couples do? And make it ur spouse? Is it ethical?
It's also an ethical right. Homosexuality is just a different way of loving. what's wrong with that?
except that crimes harm someone. homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone.
8.6% of people are criminals. Environmental and learned behavior caused this. Should we accept this in society or exile ourselves? OR, should we suppress and control this behavior?
1.5 % of men are gay. 0.7% of woman are gay. 1500 animal species exhibit gay behaviour.
It's genetic, environmental and learned behaviour.
Accept the facts or exile yourself from modern society.
is homosexuality elictricity now? Last I checked homosexuality means loving someone else that's your gender which I believe should just be considered being in love.
Precisely! U don't insert a plug into a plug or a socket into a socket. U insert a plug into a socket.
By definition, there's no such thing as unnatural. If a phenomena exists, it is a part of nature. Calling homosexuality unnatural is like calling a triangle four sided.
Xander it certainly makes me uneasy that the first thing that comes to your mind when you hear homosexual is a man kissing a man but not a woman missing a woman
Alex, not everyone blindly follows the Supreme Court. We look at what they are doing, and the case law, precedent and constitutional arguments, and conclude that they were right that denying gay people the same rights as heterosexual couples under the law is not constitutional.
In what way is that any more unnatural than a man and woman kissing? Your comment says far more about you and your prejudices than anything else.
It's just unnatural for a man to french kiss another man.
Being homosexual has nothing to do with the pope or God or any religion. Being homosexual doesn't make you better or worse than anyone else. All it means is you are attracted to your own gender. If you want, you have a natural and political right to be homosexual
because the Pope is one man who thinks God is talking to him. that is a very good reason to question what he says. the supreme Court are judges who have spent a life time studying the law.
You say not to blindly follow the pope, yet you blindly follow the Supreme Court.
we have already explained why you are wrong. you won't listen. so I went with an argument I figured you could grasp. a higher authority making the decisions for you.
That argument is the same as calling the Pope infallible. Why do we know they made right decision of what is constitutional?
you can't really argue now. well you will anyway, you're just wrong. the supreme Court are experts on the law. they know far better than you do what is and is not constitutional. that's what their job is.
legal marraige then defined as man and woman could not mean man and man unless the court CHANGED the definition, Wich they are not allowed to do. if they looked at the definition and they law they could have said something like "we have no power to change this law, but I think gay marraige should be legal so let's get the states to make an ammendment" if they did this and the ammendment was passed I could not argue constitutionally.
The supreme Court was able to rule on this issue because it has the constitutional responsibility of reviewing legislation in order to determine their constitutional adherence.
The supreme Court found that band on same sex marriage violated the 14th amendment which guarantees citizens of this country equal protection under the law. Since legal marriage comes with legal protections and legal privileges, it was deemed unconstitutional do deny a group of citizens those same privileges.
In accordance to the 14 amendment, all marriage bans regarding same sex marriage were thus invalidated and gay citizens were given the same protections under the law as heterosexual citizens.
ok, but the court could be overruled this way, disproving your argument.
back to the point, what right did the court give and what part of the constitution did they use?
amending the constitution to strip basic human rights isn't going to happen.
By the way the courts rule may be overruled by an amendment to the constitution.
Right, what right did the Supreme Court rule?
It's big enough. but in the end it isn't a popularity contest. its a matter of human rights. the courts have ruled and cannot be over ruled.
60/40 is not a large difference. Now if the number against gay marraige was in the 30's I would have to agree with you. I don't consider it a minority esspecaily among rebublicans.
By definition if you are not in the majority you are in the minority. most recent polls show 63%, 60% and 59% of Americans support gay marriage. 40% or less of all Americans oppose gay marriage. a 20% difference is considerable. people opposing gay marriage are the minority.
Fifty-seven percent of Americans support legalizing same-sex marriage. Majorities of Democrats (69 percent) and independents (59 percent) support it, while only 55 percent of Republicans do not. - CBS NEWS /New York times
57 percent is not that large on a yes/no question
I'm a rebublican so most republicans agree with me.
Now if you are a democrat and oppose same sex marraige then you are a minority.
they wrote it over 200 years ago. the idea never occurred to them. the constitution must reflect the will of the people. not be a tool to suppress it because of the religious views of a minority. and no I'm not saying Christians are a minority, but those who oppose gay marriage are.
though the founding fathers wanted the constitution to be flexible for the interpretation of the people, this isn't at all what they intended to happen
yep extending is changing adding parts to the law.
no. they simply extended the definition to include everyone as the constitution says the law must apply equally to everyone.
even you can figure out that the definition of marraige was a man and woman, then it is impossible for gays to get married. Now the court said I like gay marraige, but wait marraige is man and woman, hmm let's change the definition of marraige, then we can interpret it.
It's not constitutional that they can tell us, and change what marraige is defined as. changing is not interpreting.
Nope. A group of people who understand the law far better than you has come to the conclusion that not only is it not unconstitutional, it is unconstitutional to ban it.
Yes, you still don't know why I'm arguing against gay marraige.
BECAUSE IT IS NOT CONTITUTIONAL.
You don't get to pass laws to restrict the rights of others based on your religious beliefs. separation of church and state is one of the founding principles of our society.
It isn't this life they should be worried about. Xander, people of no religion often have success in life. like with evil people they have success in life.
I think you are a person of no religion. Good luck in life.
wow. just all of that was stupid.
1) no one is sure what makes people gay. there is a good chance its biological. therefore no it is not a psychological problem.
2) I was pointing out that there is no way to control this. and there is no evidence that it will happen. your suggestion will do nothing to affect this.
3) I'm saying that since homosexuality is well documented in other animals it is clearly natural.
4) you seem to be saying that homosexuality itself is a disease. which there is no evidence for. there is also no evidence that seeing or being around gsy people can make someone gay.
5) religions call for persecution of minorities, forced conversation, etc. virtually all religions make moral judgements of people. if you don't fit those morals you must be published. most of these morals are outdated and used to hurt people.
1) Being homosexual isn't a choice? Well maybe it's true, because it's a psychological problem. Which goes untreated and being honored.
2) As you said, it'll pose a problem, then there isn't any discussion on this point.
3) Numerous species are homosexual? Which species? You mean the status of humans (homosexuals) are that of those particular species/animals?
4) Homosexuals doing homosexual activities will contributes to horrendous diseases. A man kissing a man? A woman kissing a woman? "Hey daddy, am I gay like you too?" Unnatural? Yes. To be condemned? Yes.
5) No religion in this world teaches bad things. Religion should be a role model for lawmaking. Any religion that supports homosexuality? None.
1) since being gay isn't a choice then the idea that banning it will some how stop them from being gay is rediculous.
2) if the entire population became gay that would be problematic. but there is no way to stop someone from being gay, or to "convert" them. banning it won't change that.
3)there are numerous species that engage in homosexual acts. since they lack higher thinking then by definition homosexuality must be natural.
4) the reason it creates social problems is because people persecute them. they are forced to live a lie just to live. gay people living their life doesn't hurt anyone.
5) but most importantly, religion should never be used as a reason to create laws. you can't legislate morality. you can't force people not to be who they are.
Xander those arguments don't work on them, because they claim as long as there are straight people they are fine, or in other words gays rely on straight people. they disregard everything remotely close to religion and religious books. the social problems are according to the other side, religious people forcing beliefs on others. Cause it just can't be their falt. Even though I agree your arguments won't work, and frankly no arguments will work because they refuse to listen or think outside their little world, and you can see how flawed their arguments are.
Imagine if the whole world is made up of homosexuals, then what would happen to the next few generations of human? It's against nature. Plus there are more diseases associated and being evolved in homosexual activity. It's been prohibited boldly in various religious books to serve a purpose, not to be challenged. It's been proven scientifically, statistics have been put up and it created more social problems within the communities.
why? what possible reason is there for that?