 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
MalevolentLight
|
|
High Above
Jul 1999
time: 00:33
|
|
I happen to be an atheist and I am 100% against gay marriage. It's not about equal rights it's about preserving the tradition and morality of our country. Marriage is defined as the union between a man and a women. If this definition is changed what is to stop people from marrying their dog? There's a reason the overwhelming majority of the country is opposed to gay marriage. I am 100% atheist and I bear no love for christianity, but I firmly believe it is in the best interest of this country that it remain a christian dominated state and that the morality of Christianity be upheld. If you don't like it then you should move to france, I'm sure they'd love you there. The secularists and the ACLU aren't fighting for the people they are fighting for their own selfish agendas. If you were really representing the people you would be bending to the will of the people which is obviously against gay marriage no matter what political ideology. Only in the most liberal of places will gay marriage be allowed.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:33
|
|
quote:
Marriage is defined as the union between a man and a women. If this definition is changed what is to stop people from marrying their dog?
|
Do you not think there is a definite logical barrier between marriage between two consenting individuals (i.e. human adults) and what your strawman suggests? If marriage does not require mutual consent then you will have a situation where people may marry animals or children, but stipulating that mutual consent is required does not limit marriage to man and woman.
quote:
There's a reason the overwhelming majority of the country is opposed to gay marriage.
|
Which country? Here in the UK it's pretty much split down the middle, with more people supporting gay marriage as time goes on. A greater number of people don't even care! Nonetheless, popular opinion is no basis for deciding whether or not something should be done, especially concerning the rights of a minority.
quote:
I firmly believe it is in the best interest of this country that it remain a christian dominated state and that the morality of Christianity be upheld.
|
Why? You fail to explain what that "morality" is, why it should be objective to everyone elses morality. You sound to me like you're accepting the term on face value without examining what you are actually saying. And why Christian? What is there about Christianity that means the state should be run on those lines? The ten-commandments as a recommendation perhaps (laws that are consistent with that are futhermore consistent unto themselves so the bible needn't be used in statute). How about the whimsical declarations and rules in Leviticus - woefully inconsistent unless you lived in Judea 2200 years ago?
quote:
If you were really representing the people you would be bending to the will of the people which is obviously against gay marriage no matter what political ideology
|
Tyranny by majority, the worst form of the democracy fallacy in my opinion.
quote:
Generally, a good idea always starts out on the radical side of the spectrum, slowly becomes liberal, eventually becomes entrenched enough to be embraced by the conservatives, and is finally adopted as yet another immutable pillar by the reactionaries.
|
quote:
Yes, unfortunately atheism and bigotry against gays aren't mutually exclusive.
|
So it seems. It seems that idiocy and bigotry extends over many of the opinionated and the reactionaries.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:33
|
|
Ming:
quote:
Yep... there is. However, you seem to be playing the "children" card yet again, ignoring the fact that MANY, MANY, MANY marriages don't involve, and will NEVER involve children.
|
The majority do, and for those who do not have children, you also have to distinguish between those people who choose to marry, and not to have children, from those who marry and want children but can't have them.
The substantial majority of marriages fall into either one of these two categories for wanting children, so maybe there is some connection between marriage and wanting to have children?
That is all I'm trying to establish, the general norm, apart from the exceptions.
quote:
But you don't have a problem with them...
|
I make the distinction between those who want children and can't have them from those who can have them but don't want them. I agree with the former but not with the latter.
I've seen it in my own life, my aunt and uncle divorce over this issue, where her desire for children changed. I don't think it's a good idea to marry if you do not want children.
quote:
you have NEVER said that a man and woman who aren't planning or can't have children shouldn't be allowed to get married. Your typical response is, it would be hard to regulate or some such nonsense...
|
Yes. Because if you were to prevent them from being married, they would lie and say that they wanted children. Ergo, it is impossible to regulate.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:33
|
|
quote:
Being married has no effect on your ability to get children.
|
Having a willing and desireable partner has no effect on whether you have children?
I would argue that it plays a large effect.
quote:
If the state discriminates against children born out of wedlock, avoiding that for your future children by marrying falls under my first point. Similarly, if societal norms or religious doctrines condemn extra-marital procreation, avoiding that condemnation falls under the second point.
|
So, where do I say that society ought to discriminate against these children? They get a raw deal from the start without any intervention from society. Being born to a single mom is not going to enhance your prospect, just in lacking a father to provide for your and for your mom.
Even if you were to redress this balance, you would have to intervene positively in favour of supporting single moms, which may cause other problems.
quote:
You being you, you're gonna bringing up encouraging good homes for children to grow up in. Well, that's a reason the state might want to recognize marriage - I was listing the reasons why a couple would seek marriage.
|
One of them would be to provide a stable home for children, which is not something you considered.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
As for the couple that does not want to have children, they should be discouraged, but not barred from getting married.
|
Whoah, whoah, whoah, whoah, whoah, whoah! Care to back that up with anything remotely resembling logic?
And on a personal note for that statement, a big FU!
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
As for the couple that does not want to have children, they should be discouraged, but not barred from getting married.
I don't believe in laws that cannot easily be enforced, since such laws hurt all the rest. |
I'm sensing a kind of contradiction here.
You don't want 'laws' that cannot easily be enforced, but you want who, exactly, agents of the state? sectarian busybodies? 'discouraging' people who don't want to have children from getting married?
Hey, I've a great idea!
Let's have awards for most progeny spawned in a marriage, and perhaps televise it, you know, like a human equivalent of salmon spawning, and give medals to 'Mothers of the U.S.A.' or 'Canada' and have marital baby farms where couples are encouraged to have as many children as possible before the woman's pelvic floor collapses, or she dies worn out from repeated pregnancies.
Really, Obi Gyn, you are excelling ourself with this line of thought.
Marriage Counselling Kenobic Style-
' So you're not considering having children, you just want to get married for love, and companionship?
What are you, queer? Get out!'
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:33
|
|
quote:
I'm sensing a kind of contradiction here.
You don't want 'laws' that cannot easily be enforced, but you want who, exactly, agents of the state? sectarian busybodies? 'discouraging' people who don't want to have children from getting married?
|
I'm thinking of marriage counsellors discouraging couples from this route because one of them may want to have children later, and then that would likely lead to divorce.
quote:
Let's have awards for most progeny spawned in a marriage, and perhaps televise it, you know, like a human equivalent of salmon spawning, and give medals to 'Mothers of the U.S.A.' or 'Canada' and have marital baby farms where couples are encouraged to have as many children as possible before the woman's pelvic floor collapses, or she dies worn out from repeated pregnancies.
|
Marital baby farms? Wow, you sure have respect for women who are pregnant. 
I don't see why saying that most men and women who get married want to have children has anything to do with the state coercing them into doing so. No one forces them to get married.
quote:
' So you're not considering having children, you just want to get married for love, and companionship?
What are you, queer? Get out!'
|
Not at all. One of the questions would be, have you spoken with your fiancee about children? If so, do both of you have an agreement? Then, if they say, we don't want children, then warn them that it will make things more difficult later on should one person change her mind.
That seems reasonable to me.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:33
|
|
quote:
So... an older couple who have lost their partners in life and want to get married to enjoy each other company in the twilight of their lives "should be discouraged" from geting married, but not barred?
|
No. Their decline in fertility is through no fault of their own. That's why I make the distinction between couples that cannot conceive, and those who can, but chose not to.
quote:
So... you aren't going to actually bar a couple from getting married because they don't or can't have children, but you use that as an excuse for why gays should be barred...
|
Can't make a square a circle Ming, no matter how hard you try. I explained why one could be enforced while the other could not.
quote:
So now it's out in the open... this doesn't have ANYTHING TO DO WITH CHILDREN. Since you won't ban couples that won't have children, you can't ever use that as an excuse against gays again.
|
Sure I can. One of the biggest benefits society derives from marriage are children. Lacking any such argument from the side supporting gay marriage, I am forced to conclude that they have no case.
I have never heard a positive challenge to my argument, and I'm not surprised, since there is none. All I hear are attacks on my arguments, but none in favour as to why gay marriage will benefit society in the same way as society has come to expect from traditional marriage.
One can argue that it is discriminatory, but that does not provide a positive benefit to the state, as I have argued that marriage provides.
Now, note that I have other arguments as well, that also relate to children, but not to their conception. So even if you tackle this one, you are left to deal with raising children, and the need for the involvement of both genders in child rearing.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-08-2004 00:01
Sorry, but your guy's social conservatism is dying, and their nothing you can do about it. 
|