How will gay marriage change the world?

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by arauca, Feb 28, 2013.

  1. arauca Banned Banned

    I am not able to answer . but it is interesting sense the return polygamy is not mentioned , apparently Arabs continued until present are permitted to practice polygamy
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Of course, these religions were created by men to enforce the patriarchy. In any case, there is no reason to based modern secular law on these outdated principles.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Balerion Banned Banned

    Your position is no more "the other side" than the KKK's position on race relations is the other side. It's just hate speech and lies, nothing more.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Balerion Banned Banned

    It is a non-sequitur to say that because a gay man allegedly accosted you in public, therefore no gay man would come to harm unless they did the same. Not only is that an illogical statement, but it's patently false. Homosexuals are today and have been for years the target of unprovoked physical attacks. Being gay is reason enough for some bigots, so your claim to the contrary is what makes you ignorant. You talk of hearing the other side's argument, but you seem to know absolutely nothing about the plight of homosexuals. I wonder why that is? I think you've probably spent too much time reading and disseminating the propaganda of hatemongers, and not enough time educating yourself of the facts.
  8. rodereve Registered Member

    Well, it's obvious that the majority here are liberal on this matter.

    The easy route (often traversed by the weak minds) in a liberal vs conservative debate is to automatically call the conservative the bigot, ignorant, intolerant, and discriminatory. Why? Because the conservative seems to be the one that is holding back the tides of change, whereas the liberal is the one championing on that change. And anything against that change (whether the topic be transsexualism, affirmative action, drug use, abortion) would be discriminating against the target group in question.

    Well, YES, by definition withholding change to the status quo WOULD be intolerance to that change. But are all changes good? And then, would all intolerance to change be bad?

    If you deny the former, then you should accept that intolerance [to change] is not universally bad. So before you start throwing words loosely like inflexible, discriminatory, intolerance --I gladly claim the right to them all. I claim the right to be intolerant of certain changes, and do not feel sorry for it at all. There was once a time that being traditional and orthodox was seen as something good and of worth in this country. That being conservative was to uphold those traditional values was good. But now, the script is flipped and anyone OPPOSING change to those values would be seen as a bigot.

    In a debate, there is two sides, so by default there are two opposing views. To oppose liberal views would be a bigot, to oppose conservative views would not? Now that I've shown your petty accusations in the true light, I'll move further.

    Not all groups claim equal rights. If I started a new sect called "Horsianity" that worshipped horses as their Gods, should my followers and I be able to automatically claim the right to become a recognized religion? No, not all sects become a recognized religion in a country. I would need to prove substantial claim that I should become a recognized religion before I am able to benefit from the rights of a recognized religion. The burden is not the other side who has to disprove that my religion isn't a recognized religion.
    In the same vein, for any groups that aren't currently recognized to hold rights and benefits as recognized marriage or status, it is their job to prove their claim. Why should I have to explain myself that transsexualism isn't a perversion of humanity and a deviation from the norm? It is your job to prove that it isn't. And while I think that mutilating your own body, destroying your genitalia in replacement of some distorted fake construction of another genitalia, IS a perversion of humanity -- I don't need to say it. if you are the one bringing on the change to the status quo, you are the one with the burden to justify that change.

    Feel free to disagree. But don't get it twisted.
  9. Balerion Banned Banned

    Since you've argued no details whatsoever, I'm not surprised you're avoiding them here. It's easier to be broad and vague. There's no accountability in that tactic, which seems to be right in your wheelhouse.

    Wrong. The reason you have been called a bigot, ignorant, intolerant, and discriminatory is because your opinions are based on ignorance and baseless prejudices. It isn't even that your position has no merit, because one could be wrong without being ignorant or bigoted; it's that you don't seem to care that you're wrong, and you press on in spite of that, seemingly because expressing your disgust is more important than being right. You'll promote your ideology even if you look like a fool in doing so. That's what makes you an ignorant bigot.

    It has nothing to do with change, either; transsexualism isn't illegal, and people are free to have the operation as they please, so you're not standing in the way of liberal progress. It's already done. The only change being promoted is by you, in fact, which is the proposition that we shouldn't do the surgery as it "promotes" transsexualism.

    These are obvious questions that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic whatsoever. No one who disagrees with you (namely me) has ever said that they disagree with you because you are against change. Likewise, no one has argued that all change is good. It's this straw manning that makes you such a pain in the ass to converse with. It's as if pathologically incapable of being honest about this subject. Why haven't you addressed my questions? I asked you what your alternative would be to allowing sex-change operations. I've asked you what makes transsexualism perverse. I've asked you to define the vague terms in your arguments, and you've ignored all of it. Why? Oh, right, because ignoring those questions allows you to re-state your bigoted, ignorant opinion without having to face the possibility that you're wrong.

    No one has argued you don't have that right.

    Neither of those claims are true. Liberalism has always existed in one form or another, and there has always been opposition to the status quo. The righteousness of any position has always been relative to the person holding it.

    The reason we call some change in legislation or social mores "progress" is because it reflects our new understanding of a given issue. Homosexuality used to be considered a mental disorder, a disease, or a deviance. It was even thought to be contagious. In some circles (guess which ones?) those views are still held to one degree or another, but as we've learned more about the subject, those old beliefs have largely fallen away. Now most people simply accept that homosexuality is either an inborn trait, or of no consequence to society as a whole and therefore no concern of theirs. This is called progress because it is a change in thinking based on new and better information. What you're proposing is that society reverts to a behavior indicative of a time when transsexualism was likewise considered a perversion, for what seems to be no other purpose than allowing you to dehumanize transsexuals guilt-free. (I can only assume that's your motivation, since you haven't articulated any legitimate reason for this desire)

    You shouldn't have any trouble seeing why you would be opposed in this endeavor, and why your thinking would be considered bigoted and ignorant. It's not because you have an opposing view, but because you knowingly promote an outdated and meanspirited worldview simply because you're grossed out by these kinds of people.

    I'll expect you to publicly retract this statement in your reply.

    This is a mess. First, no one has the right to the legal benefits of founding an organized religion unless they meet certain criteria. (Or file enough lawsuits, as was the case with Scientology) Meanwhile, citizens do have the right to be treated equally, and it is up to the discriminator to explain why it is their discrimination was valid. The reason some classes are protected while others aren't is because the protected classes are more likely to suffer discrimination, not because Jews, say, are a "more legitimate" class of person than people with blue eyes. So if you want to take away the right of transsexuals to have gender-reassignment surgery, you need to make a case as to why. And guess what? It can't be because you disagree with transsexualism. That is not a valid reason.

    Also, this analogy doesn't apply at all to the topic. Trannsexuals are already a protected class in many places, and no one has denied them the right to the surgery so far as I'm aware. You're acting, again, as if the world has no idea what this phenomenon is. You seem to live in a bygone age, my friend. It's time to educate yourself.

    Incorrect, from both a legal and moral standpoint. Just because something is agreed upon doesn't mean it's immune to scrutiny. The gay marriage argument, for example. The main question is not "Why do they deserve rights," but "Do we have the right to refuse them?" No one has to tell you that gays are humans just like everyone else. No one is even arguing that homosexuality is inborn, because it isn't relevant.

    You don't have to argue that it's a deviation from the norm. That goes without saying. You do have to explain why it's a perversion, however, because perversion does not simply mean "different." It means something is different and wrong, usually with a moral connotation. And yes, the claim that transsexualism is morally wrong requires some explaining. It isn't self-evidently true.

    Incorrect. You make the claim that it is morally wrong, you support the claim.

    Again, to call it a perversion is to say that it is wrong, and that argument requires some qualification. So yes, you do need to say it, and then you need to support it.

    You've once more trapped yourself. Earlier you argued that not all change is good--and, by extension, that not all tradition or accepted behavior is good--and went on to say that any arguments based solely on the criteria that something inhibits change are "petty." Yet here you are arguing that transsexualism is wrong solely because it is a change to the status quo. I shouldn't be surprised that you've contradicted yourself, but to do so this quickly is a bit stunning.

    Do yourself a favor and really think about what I've said, and provide a thoughtful response. None of this "Forget all the details" BS again, okay? If you don't have the integrity to argue this point honestly, then just go away. I'd rather you didn't respond at all than respond with another post like this one.
  10. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Like most straight men, I can't help feeling a little sense of discomfort with the whole concept of homosexuality. As I've opined before, as the Linguistics Moderator, the word "homophobia" really represents "fear of being involved in homosexual behavior," rather than "fear of homosexual people."

    Nonetheless, whenever the gay fray becomes newsworthy because of an issue like gay marriage, I always instantly find myself on their side, rather than their detractors.

    Every gay man I've ever known has been a perfectly nice guy who did not even come close to threatening me. But every anti-gay person I've ever met has been a complete jerk!

    Easy choice. I don't want a man in my bed, and I know that's never gonna happen. But I don't want these people on my planet! They make me ashamed to be straight.
  11. rodereve Registered Member

    1- You can understand my argument by framing it with respect to the initial topic. Transsexualism is not illegal nor is the operation in this part of the world, but I said that gay marriage is a gateway for transsexual people to be accepted in the same regard. Transsexual marriages are not accepted widespread, nor are the particulars accepted around the world, their right to change their name, the gender on their birth certificate etc. Those rights have not yet been afforded to them everywhere. When you say that transsexualism has already been accepted, I have big news for you buddy, although opposite of what you might have been led to believe, the world is bigger than the United States.

    2- You keep asking for a response, but I see nothing worth responding to. I keep seeing you claim I argue against strawmen, and then return by providing strawmen of your own. I'll just point out the logical fallacies of your own to show you why your argument doesn't even deserve a response.

    STRAWMAN I wasn't arguing that someone said I didn't have that right - did I? You continue to quote random lines, where no argument is made, and argue against them for no reason lol That is just pathetic

    Circular logic: To be discriminatory is to have prejudices. So to call me discriminatory based on my discriminations - Well.....Yes.

    Ad hominem - usually cluttered in most of your responses, so why get into an intelligent discussion with someone like this?

    STRAWMAN: another false accusation, refer to point 1 for future rights still being rallied for change.

    STRAWMAN: Another strawman, I was referring to the accusations of 'intolerance' and 'bigot' as petty. (QUOTE: "petty accusations"), I never said this bogus thing you made up, nor did I say solely, but you keep putting words in my mouth

    STRAWMAN: yet another strawman, I never said it was wrong SOLELY because it was a change to status quo, but that because of that fact that moves the burden of proof to those rallying for change. Why do you keep saying I stated arguments with "soley", its easy to argue made-up arguments

    And now you wonder why I don't give it a proper response? Apart from telling me to retract statements or apologize for things, there is no base for intelligent civil debate with a belligerent.
  12. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    There are two things you have to disprove in order to deny civil rights to gays or transsexuals.

    1. The current understanding of psychologists that homosexuality and transsexualism are simply differences, not symptoms of a mental illness, and not a personal choice.

    2. That recognizing the civil rights of these people have some deleterious effect on your life.
  13. arauca Banned Banned


    Any thing that does not agree with your position you label derogatory.

    If homosexuals would be some other specie then they would have a point. Otherwise you are a male or a female and the present law covers us all the same way . Homosexual is nothing more then individuals with different habits , like obese , skinny, alcoholic, cocaine addict and so on.
  14. arauca Banned Banned

    Please stop crying, be a mas if you have testicles or be a woman if you have ovary , And stop been ridicules,
  15. Balerion Banned Banned

    I'm aware of that, I was simply talking about their right to get the surgery, since that was what you were hounding on from the outset. If you're saying they shouldn't have the right to change their names, then say so. The problem is that you have been hopelessly vague, and I'm left to interpret what you mean. If you think you're being misrepresented, then make an effort to be clear. It's your own fault if your meaning is being misconstrued.

    Yeah, that's a pretty prototypical response from an intellectual coward such as yourself. Speak vaguely, misuse terms, and then accuse others of arguing logical fallacies. I'd expect nothing less from you.

    Of course you were. Without that context, the statement would have made no sense.

    For one, assessing that you are discriminatory because you have prejudices in not circular logic, it's just plain logic. By that same note, would it be circular logic to call you blue based on the fact that you were covered head-to-toe in blue paint? Obviously not. It's a observation based on evidence.

    And at any rate, I was saying that your are called those things because of your ignorance and baseless (a term you ignored) prejudices. Everyone has prejudices, but yours are especially without merit. So much so you can't even bring yourself explain them here.

    That is not ad hominem. Ad hom is an argument against the person--for example, saying that you are a bigot because you're a fool--but that's not what I said. I said that you are a bigot because you promote arguments that make you look foolish. The arguments are the object of derision, not you.

    What a shock! You're misusing terms again.

    You've suggested that they shouldn't be allowed to have the surgery, which they already are allowed to have. Hence, you're promoting a change.

    Oh come on, you're not even trying now. What makes those accusations petty, genius? The criteria upon which they are based. You didn't simply say "petty accusations," you also qualified the claim. It's one of the only things you've actually bothered to qualify in this thread. To wit:

    So let's stop pretending that I was arguing a straw man. You very clearly intended to show that my accusations were petty because not all change is good--and, by extension, not all tradition or accepted behavior is good.

    Seriously, enough with the lying. Do it again, and I'm going start reporting your posts.

    That makes no sense whatsoever, and it's a lie. You used the "burden of proof" pseudoargument as an excuse for why you don't have to explain your reasons for wanting to oppress transsexuals--ie because the burden rests on the party seeking change, not on you, who was trying to maintain the status quo. You said nothing of the criteria changing, let alone your fear of it. Your argument against transsexualism has literally been based on nothing other than the fact that it's different. Well, that, and you said it wasn't found elsewhere in nature, which is also a lie.

    Not anymore. Now I know you don't have anything of value to say, and aren't confident enough in your own arguments to flesh them out publicly. But you're such a bigot that you can't help but saying all the awful, ignorant things that you want to be true about these people. It must be a difficult situation for you, knowing that you're intellectually over your head, but still desiring to promote the same arguments you have no faith in whatsoever. It leads to debates such as this one, where you're contradicting yourself and getting caught in outright lies. That would be embarrassing to anyone.

    So no, don't worry about it. I wouldn't expect a proper response from you, so this is no surprise. Nor do I expecting anything but the same from you going forward--intellectual dishonesty, actual dishonesty, and displays of zero integrity.
  16. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    The liberal argument for allowing gay marriage is that gay people have the same interest in the right to marriage as straight people do. We ought to treat like as like, and not discriminate based on the sexual preference of somebody who wants to get married.

    If you're conservative, presumably you want to hold onto traditions for a reason. So, give me your reasons why we ought not to allow gay people to marry. You must think there is some harm involved in permitting such a thing. So tell me. Who or what is harmed? And how? Why should gay people be denied marriage as an equal right that all straight people automatically have?

    It sounds like you feel that gay marriage is a threat to you, somehow. Would it undermine the worth of your own marriage, perhaps? Or would it "normalise" something you fear by allowing gay people to play a more equal role in your society? Or what?

    A bigot is a person who does not tolerate views that differ from his own. He insists that the world ought to be arranged according to his own preferences, always. The preferences of others count for nothing in the mind of the bigot.

    I assume you're not a bigot. So, therefore you oppose gay marriage for a reason other than that you're uncomfortable with gay people having rights you'd rather they didn't have. You recognise that (some) gay people want to be able to marry, but you think that despite this desire on their part, there are good public policy reasons to deny them that right. So, tell us those reasons.

    By analogy, I assume your argument is that gay marriage advocates haven't "proved their claim" that they should be allowed to marry. In other words, you claim that their expressed desire to marry is not sufficient to allow them to claim that as a right.

    What more would they need to show to make their case, then?
  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    Why would homosexual people need to be a different species in order to enjoy equal rights? Surely the fact that they are the same species tells us that they ought to be treated the same as other members of the species?

    The present law (in places where gay marriage is not allowed) does not treat gay couples the same way as heterosexual couples, so clearly it does not cover all in the same way.

    Let's suppose that is true. So what?

    Tell me why homosexual people should not be allowed to marry.

    Are you trying to insult a man here by calling him a woman?

    Do you think women are inferior to men?
  18. arauca Banned Banned

    Were did you get , your last two line ? Are you trying to catch me on something that I did not say ? if so shame on you
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    But it doesn't apply equally. If you're heterosexual, you're allowed to marry. If you're homosexual, you're not allowed. See? The law discriminates against homosexuals.

    Yes. The argument is that the law should be changed. Understand?

    Tell me: why do heterosexual people want to get married? List a few of the reasons for me.

    Now go through that list and tell me which if those reasons (if any) might apply to homosexual couples.

    Is it?

    Why are heterosexual people allowed to remain married if they don't have any children? Why don't people have to sign a contract saying "We promise that we will have children" in order to be allowed to marry?

    There must be other reasons that marriages happen. Can you think of any?

    Homosexual couples don't want "something special". They want the same thing you already have: the right to marry the person they want to marry. This is about equality.

    You wrote:

    To me, this sounds like you're saying "If you're a man, you don't cry. Only women cry. And crying is a sign of weakness and inferiority, so if you're crying you're like an inferior woman and not like a big strong powerful man. If you're male, you need to fit a big strong stereotype of what I, arauca, believe a man should be. And I, arauca, think that women are inferior and weak, so my implying that you, a man, are like a woman is an insult to you."

  20. arauca Banned Banned

    So you are a bigot ?
  21. arauca Banned Banned

    Before any thing you are funny .
    Women are fine my mother was a woman, she is superior to me , Male and female have their own part in the society , and so male have their own part.
    You tell me what is the benefit of two male getting married , why not just live together, if trouble comes in between they just go their own marry way . I had two lesbian tenant for 6 years , then the tomboy found herself an other girl and they split their marry way . You tell me what would happen if they were married ? The only beneficiary would be the lawyers who will handle the divorce procedure.
  22. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    You wouldn't want your mother out working for equal pay to a man, or choosing when she had sex with your father, would you?

    50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce too, yet you're not saying that heterosexual marriage should not be allowed because the lawyers are the only beneficiaries.

    Why don't heterosexual couples just live together, and if trouble comes they can just go their merry way?

    Oh wait! You know what? Some heterosexual couples do just live together, without being married. And you know what? Some homosexual couples are also happy to just live together. But you know what? Some heterosexual couples decide to get married. And some homosexual couples would also like to get married.

    What I want to know is why you want to prevent homosexual couples from marrying.
  23. arauca Banned Banned

    Funny . Why don't they just call it a contract and live the word marriage for male with female . Other vise you wand to make a mockery of a system.

Share This Page