7 states pass marriage amendments

[Gunny]

Gawd. Help me out, people. Is GunnyL really this dense or is he just pretending? He doesn’t even understand the point I made about choosing someone from a different race. He supposedly confuses it with race, itself. He must be just playing games with me. I give up.

Absolutely pathetic. Get some help, moron.

 

[glockmail]

Ok, so then blacks weren't being discriminated against since most [Americans] were white during the civil rights movement.



I have lost much respect for glockmail.

I'm crushed. But your response to my post makes no sense.

 

[CharlestonChad]

I'm crushed. But your response to my post makes no sense.

Sorry to break your heart.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Gosh.

My reasoning is perfectly sound in this case. The bottom line is that merely because people think that something is wrong does not mean that the thing is wrong. I think that some things are right and I think that some things are wrong. I think that it is right for adult American women who do not have a felony conviction to be allowed to vote. I think that it is wrong to deny civil union status for gay couples. Therefore, you are incorrect again. I stand for things.

.

Uh, so you are saying that what people think is right or wrong is irrelevant,

but then you follow that by saying what you think is right and wrong??? Please pass the advil.

If peoples opinions (what they think) doesnt determine what is right or wrong, then what does? Hmmmmmmmmmmm???


And just because people in the past WRONGLY didnt allow marriages between people of different races, doesnt mean that any other restrictions therefore are automatically wrong also. AND you ARE comparing ones race to a behavior (homosexuality) when you bring up the past WRONGFUL discrimination people had against others based on a persons race. Racial discrimination is based on emotions and NEVER has any sound logical reasoning to support it. Discrimination against homosexuality, SOMETIMES is based on sound logical reasoning.

 

[mattskramer]

Uh, so you are saying that what people think is right or wrong is irrelevant,

but then you follow that by saying what you think is right and wrong??? Please pass the advil.

Sometimes I make mistakes in using logic. Try to use pure logic and reasoning. I said that The bottom line is that merely because people think that something is wrong does not mean that the thing is wrong. I did not say that what people think is right or wrong is irrlelvant. It may be relevant in relationships. I might not want to have a relationship with someone who thinks that a particular thing is right or wrong. What people think to be right and wrong is important to our representative government. People often vote based on what issues are important to them and what they think is right or wrong.

If peoples opinions (what they think) doesnt determine what is right or wrong, then what does? Hmmmmmmmmmmm???

The philosophy of ethics has been debated for centuries. Even I don’t have all of the answers. There are different theories. Examples include Utilitarianism which prescribes the quantitative maximization of good consequences for a population – the right thing is the thing that produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people. There is Deontology - a theory holding that decisions should be made by considering one's duties and the rights of others. It is related to the categorical imeritive: Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law. The right thing is the thing that everyone should do no matter what the consequences. There are many theoires beyond and between Utilitarianism and Deontology. Some people (Biblical Absolutist) think that the Bible tells what is right and wrong. There is libertarianism which basically says that people should be free to do as they please as long as they don’t interfere with the freedoms of others.

People throughout the ages have been trying to rationalize and synthesize their opinions about right and wrong with commonly established theories.

And just because people in the past WRONGLY didnt allow marriages between people of different races, doesnt mean that any other restrictions therefore are automatically wrong also.

You are absolutely right even though traditionalists would argue with you. People say that since something has always been a certain way, it should continue to be that way. This is just another example of fallacious reasoning.

AND you ARE comparing ones race to a behavior (homosexuality) when you bring up the past WRONGFUL discrimination people had against others based on a persons race. Racial discrimination is based on emotions and NEVER has any sound logical reasoning to support it. Discrimination against homosexuality, SOMETIMES is based on sound logical reasoning.

Nope. I am not comparing races and I am not comparing sexes. I am comparing the right to choose to marry someone of a different race with the right to choose to marry someone of the same sex. Please present me with sound logical reasoning for why we should discriminate against homosexuality.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Sometimes I make mistakes in using logic. Try to use pure logic and reasoning. I said that The bottom line is that merely because people think that something is wrong does not mean that the thing is wrong. I did not say that what people think is right or wrong is irrlelvant. It may be relevant in relationships. I might not want to have a relationship with someone who thinks that a particular thing is right or wrong. What people think to be right and wrong is important to our representative government. People often vote based on what issues are important to them and what they think is right or wrong. .

The debate is a legal one. Our legal issues ultimately are decided by majority of voters rule, ALWAYS, ultimately. Those decisions are based upon what people think /feel is right and wrong, and nothing else.

The philosophy of ethics has been debated for centuries. Even I don’t have all of the answers..

No shit? Im so dissappointed.

There are different theories...

No shit?

Examples include Utilitarianism which prescribes the quantitative maximization of good consequences for a population – the right thing is the thing that produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people. There is Deontology - a theory holding that decisions should be made by considering one's duties and the rights of others. It is related to the categorical imeritive: Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law. The right thing is the thing that everyone should do no matter what the consequences. There are many theoires beyond and between Utilitarianism and Deontology. Some people (Biblical Absolutist) think that the Bible tells what is right and wrong. There is libertarianism which basically says that people should be free to do as they please as long as they don’t interfere with the freedoms of others.

People throughout the ages have been trying to rationalize and synthesize their opinions about right and wrong with commonly established theories..

Your list of theories is irrelevant. My question about how you question the value of peoples opinions on what is right and wrong, then go ahead and offer your opinion.

You are absolutely right even though traditionalists would argue with you. People say that since something has always been a certain way, it should continue to be that way. This is just another example of fallacious
reasoning. .

Not necessarily. Im a traditionalist, but I would only say that things should remain the way they are, IF its working, and IF you dont show a reason to change it. But again, this is irrelevant.

Nope. I am not comparing races and I am not comparing sexes..

Actually, yes you are. But that aside, as again, its irrelevant, your bringing up how in the past, the majority opinion was wrong to justify ignoring the majority opinion on an issue today, is IRRELEVANT. EVERY METHOD of deciding what is right and wrong has been WRONG at some point in the past and hence, to saythat either (1) it is wrong today because it was wrong in the past, IS SIMPLY FOOLISH. That would disqualify ANY AND ALL methods of deciding what is right and wrong. Or (2) that SOMETIMES it is wrong today, because it has been wrong in the past, is IRRELEVANT because it only proposes a POSSIBLITY of it being wrong based on the history, and hence, why bring it up? Or (3) The past is totally unconnected to the present and hence, again, why bring it up then?
In any case, I dont see why you should post it.

I am comparing the right to choose to marry someone of a different race with the right to choose to marry someone of the same sex. Please present me with sound logical reasoning for why we should discriminate against homosexuality.

Marriage is NOT a right. It is a privledge, an Institution that exists to benefit ALL of society at whole. NOT for the benefit of the individuals. The individuals do benefit, but thats NOT the bottom line purpose of marriage. The societal benefit is to create strong families which results in more kids being raised in whole family situations more often, which results in more emotionally healthy and mature people. Kids raised in single family households simply fair much worse. Fact is, over 90% of men in prison are from single parent households.
Also, it is to encourage more adults to have offspring, as that is also beneficial to, and makes a stronger society for us. The encouragement is attained by financial incentives, or is suppose to be. Whenever two adults have a child, raising that child is a detriment to their finances. There are many adult couples who would not have a child if there was no financial help from the State.
RIGHTS are granted to EVERYONE, unless the person does something to have it taken away.
PRIVLEDGES are granted to only those who meet the criteria to have that privledge. Therefore, the person(s) who want that privledge, is required to prove their meet the criteria. Therefore, YOU are the one who should show a benefit to society great enough to justify allowing the PRIVLEDGE of marriage to couples of the same gender.

Since biologically, homosexuals cannot have offspring, those criteria cannnot be achieved by them.

SO, basically,. my question to you is, what is the purpose of granting marriage to same gender couples?

Then there is also the question of, if same gender couples should be granted the privledge of marriage, then why should there be any restrictions at all? Polygamy, beastiality, etc. etc.
Now, you may say, thats fine with you, but the problem is, again, thats irrelevant. Fact is, MOST of society would not support it. AND, ultimately, our laws are dictated by what the MAJORITY think is right and wrong.

 

[MissileMan]

Since biologically, homosexuals cannot have offspring, those criteria cannnot be achieved by them.

Most are quite capable, biologically, of having children, though the child they can produce would not be 50% genetically of their spouse. That's also true of a lot of heterosexual couples.

 

[mattskramer]

The debate is a legal one. Our legal issues ultimately are decided by majority of voters rule, ALWAYS, ultimately. Those decisions are based upon what people think /feel is right and wrong, and nothing else.

I agree.

Your list of theories is irrelevant. My question about how you question the value of peoples opinions on what is right and wrong, then go ahead and offer your opinion.

I try to use logical and reason in an attempt to get people to explain their positions using logic and reason. I try to get beyond emotional rhetoric and personal biases in trying to find logical explanations for people’s views.

Not necessarily. Im a traditionalist, but I would only say that things should remain the way they are, IF its working, and IF you dont show a reason to change it. But again, this is irrelevant.

Define working. Slavery seemed to work just fine until the Blacks started to revolt. Sometimes things work but there could be room for improvement. There are not only logical rebuttals against arguments waged against the legalization of gay marriage. There are even reasons why gay marriage should be allowed.

Actually, yes you are. But that aside, as again, its irrelevant, your bringing up how in the past, the majority opinion was wrong to justify ignoring the majority opinion on an issue today, is IRRELEVANT. EVERY METHOD of deciding what is right and wrong has been WRONG at some point in the past and hence, to saythat either (1) it is wrong today because it was wrong in the past, IS SIMPLY FOOLISH. That would disqualify ANY AND ALL methods of deciding what is right and wrong. Or (2) that SOMETIMES it is wrong today, because it has been wrong in the past, is IRRELEVANT because it only proposes a POSSIBLITY of it being wrong based on the history, and hence, why bring it up? Or (3) The past is totally unconnected to the present and hence, again, why bring it up then? In any case, I dont see why you should post it.

My point, in a nutshell, is that people will bring up arguments for or against issues. Those arguments often include fallacies. Common fallacies include the appeal to tradition, appeal to nature, and the bandwagon. Just because something is traditional and/or natural and/or popular does not make it right or wrong. I like to seek out and catch such fallacies.

Marriage is NOT a right. It is a privledge, an Institution that exists to benefit ALL of society at whole. NOT for the benefit of the individuals. The individuals do benefit, but thats NOT the bottom line purpose of marriage. The societal benefit is to create strong families which results in more kids being raised in whole family situations more often, which results in more emotionally healthy and mature people. Kids raised in single family households simply fair much worse.

Also, it is to encourage more adults to have offspring, as that is also beneficial to, and makes a stronger society for us.

Then there is also the question of, if same gender couples should be granted the privilege of marriage, then why should there be any restrictions at all? Polygamy, bestiality, etc. etc.

Now, you may say, thats fine with you, but the problem is, again, thats irrelevant. Fact is, MOST of society would not support it. AND, ultimately, our laws are dictated by what the MAJORITY think is right and wrong.

Okay. Your criteria for what is right and wrong are to what extent it benefits society. Do you think that cigarettes should be outlawed? There are many things that are legal that are of no benefit to society health. At any rate, I think that gay marriage would help society as well as the gay couple:

Children raised by a gay couple would, on average, fair better than children raised in an orphanage. There is the adoption option as well as surrogate mothers and sperm banks. Also, the commitment of a marriage means the participants are discouraged from promiscuous sex - slowing the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.

The domino theory simply does not work in all cases. Did Communism conquer the entire East after we left Vietnam? Each nation is different. Beasts are not humans and do not understand the concept of marriage. They are not on equal status with man. Therefore they are not capable of giving mutual informed consent.

There are limits to my views, even when there is mutual consent. Aren’t there limits to your views? Let us outlaw all things that do not benefit society as a whole. I doubt that you are in favor of such a notion.

Side notes:

A society’s having more children does not necessarily make a society stronger. The society must have the materials (food, farm land, the availability of jobs, and other factors) to help support more children.

Also, where are the statistics to support the notion that marriage encourages more adults to have offspring? Do you have the reference? I might be wrong but I doubt that marriage makes any difference. Singles have children and married couples choose to not have kids.​

Finally, I agree that laws are, for the most part, dictated by what the majority thinks is right or wrong. At least we agree with that.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Most are quite capable, biologically, of having children, though the child they can produce would not be 50% genetically of their spouse. That's also true of a lot of heterosexual couples.

You trying to say two homosexuals men or two women can get pregnant?

Actually now, that brings up a good point about the semen produced by a male homosexual. WHATS THE PUROSE ?? I mean, if genetically he is a homosexual, then why did nature have him produce sperm?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I agree.



I try to use logical and reason in an attempt to get people to explain their positions using logic and reason. I try to get beyond emotional rhetoric and personal biases in trying to find logical explanations for people’s views.



Define working. Slavery seemed to work just fine until the Blacks started to revolt. Sometimes things work but there could be room for improvement. There are not only logical rebuttals against arguments waged against the legalization of gay marriage. There are even reasons why gay marriage should be allowed. .

You can use slavery as an example, because that was an institution that was evil. Once it became apparent to enough people, then "its working" is not a valid reason for allowing it to continue. Executing thieves would work also, but its wrong PRIMA FACIA, "on its face value" it needs no explaing.
Same sex marriage will NOT improve stability for familes. It will only hurt it. Believe it or not, MANY divorce people still maintain a "family" and putting more burden on the family courts will only hinder good decisions by judges there.
Saying there are arguements and reasons for same sex marriage doesnt make it so.

My point, in a nutshell, is that people will bring up arguments for or against issues. Those arguments often include fallacies. Common fallacies include the appeal to tradition, appeal to nature, and the bandwagon. Just because something is traditional and/or natural and/or popular does not make it right or wrong. I like to seek out and catch such fallacies. .

But that doesnt always discount their entire arguement. You often point out one part of an arguement that has a fallacy and then discount the entire arguement because of it.
Its like, if I have some evidence that I think proves OJ was guilty, but then you show the fallacy of it, that fallacy doesnt automatically discount any other evidence.
I think you have read alot about logic, reasoning and debating, but it doesnt seem like you have a natural understanding of it. Kinda like some quarterbacks have an instinct for playing, while others who study and study the game, when they get in it, they fail to make the crucial plays under pressure.

Okay. Your criteria for what is right and wrong are to what extent it benefits society. Do you think that cigarettes should be outlawed? .

Oh, not that again. Its not a good analogy. CIgs being outlawed has MANY problems. One, its not enforcable. also, it wouldnt benefit ALL of society. You seem to have a knack for brining up bogus analogies.

There are many things that are legal that are of no benefit to society health. At any rate, I think that gay marriage would help society as well as the gay couple:.

You dont need a LICENSE to do those things, for marriage you do, bad analogies.

Children raised by a gay couple would, on average, fair better than children raised in an orphanage. There is the adoption option as well as surrogate mothers and sperm banks. Also, the commitment of a marriage means the participants are discouraged from promiscuous sex - slowing the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. .

Most of those statements are HIGHLY debatable. AND I DONT want to use children as experimental pawns to find out., Also, men are promiscuous, In a homosexual male relationship, its almost neveer a lifelong commitment, and that aint gonna change. Its women that by and large demand monomgamy from men.
Not to mention, if you remove the limit, then why not polygamy and beastiality? Those people would use YOUR EXACT ARGUEMENT

The domino theory simply does not work in all cases. Did Communism conquer the entire East after we left Vietnam? Each nation is different. Beasts are not humans and do not understand the concept of marriage. They are not on equal status with man. Therefore they are not capable of giving mutual informed consent. .

Its not a domino theory. The domino theory would be, "if you are right, then their arguement would be right also (regardless of what that arguement is) Just like communism, the dominoe theory was based on "communism is good for all, regardless of what the culture is like) but communism isnt good or even suceptable to all cultures equally. In this case, those people would be using your exact SAME ARGUEMENT, and NOT saying, well, if its ok for some to marry, then its ok for anyone to marry. No, they would argue, it benefits society.

There are limits to my views, even when there is mutual consent. Aren’t there limits to your views? Let us outlaw all things that do not benefit society as a whole. I doubt that you are in favor of such a notion. .

Yes, and we, as a society overwhelmingly draw the line excluding same sex marriage. And, no, there are no limit to my views, whatever that means. Outlawing all things is impractable. Many cannot be enforced, and many are so much in a shadow of gray, its hard to determine if it benefits society. And, besides, like I said, most of the example you bring up do not require a license.

Side notes:

A society’s having more children does not necessarily make a society stronger. The society must have the materials (food, farm land, the availability of jobs, and other factors) to help support more children. .​

wrong. SOcieties that do not replenish their population and add some regularly, are doomed to failure.

Also, where are the statistics to support the notion that marriage encourages more adults to have offspring? Do you have the reference? I might be wrong but I doubt that marriage makes any difference. Singles have children and married couples choose to not have kids.​

.[/QUOTE]I didnt say marriage encourages it. I said the govt is supposed to provide a financial benefit to those with kids, and that will encourage more kids. Common sense tells you that, since often people say they cant afford a kid yet. Dont need statistics. Tell me where are the stats proving dog poop tastes bad?

Finally, I agree that laws are, for the most part, dictated by what the majority thinks is right or wrong. At least we agree with that..[/QUOTE]yep.

 

[MissileMan]

You trying to say two homosexuals men or two women can get pregnant?

No, that any one of them is most likely capable of providing half of what's necessary to make a baby.

 

[CockySOB]

You trying to say two homosexuals men or two women can get pregnant?

Actually now, that brings up a good point about the semen produced by a male homosexual. WHATS THE PUROSE ?? I mean, if genetically he is a homosexual, then why did nature have him produce sperm?

Not one of the better arguments to try to make. One could just as easily ask you why you were born with an appendix. Yeah, I know its function is indeterminate yet, and that several theories exist as to its original function; but, it serves no solid purpose does it? After all, numerous people walk around without an appendix these days, and they seem fine.

 

[glockmail]

You trying to say two homosexuals men or two women can get pregnant?

Actually now, that brings up a good point about the semen produced by a male homosexual. WHATS THE PUROSE ?? I mean, if genetically he is a homosexual, then why did nature have him produce sperm?

As a spice on his sausage?

 

[no1tovote4]

You trying to say two homosexuals men or two women can get pregnant?

Actually now, that brings up a good point about the semen produced by a male homosexual. WHATS THE PUROSE ?? I mean, if genetically he is a homosexual, then why did nature have him produce sperm?

Easier to have one significant change than two. It just shows the imperfect nature of evolution. One little change can create a whole new species or it can simply make somebody a "pariah".

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Not one of the better arguments to try to make. One could just as easily ask you why you were born with an appendix. Yeah, I know its function is indeterminate yet, and that several theories exist as to its original function; but, it serves no solid purpose does it? After all, numerous people walk around without an appendix these days, and they seem fine.

If the appendx serves no purpose for EVERYONE, then its a bad analogy. Semen is used by most for procreation. Without it, we would cease to exist. Without the appendix, if it has no purpose, human kind would continue to flourish.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

No, that any one of them is most likely capable of providing half of what's necessary to make a baby.

since we are talking about same gender marriage, then it would require TWO.

 

[CharlestonChad]

Why cannot people just compromise? Banning gays from getting married is fine, as long as a gay couple can still have the benefits of marriage granted by the government. Of the gays that I know, that's what they want.

 

[glockmail]

Why cannot people just compromise? Banning gays from getting married is fine, as long as a gay couple can still have the benefits of marriage granted by the government. Of the gays that I know, that's what they want.

It's what they say they want, but not the real agenda. Otherwise they'd simply sign a power of attorney, legal in 50 states, go home, shut the door, and do whatever they do to each other in private. Their real agenda is the demise of traditional marraige and families.

 

[CharlestonChad]

It's what they say they want, but not the real agenda. Otherwise they'd simply sign a power of attorney, legal in 50 states, go home, shut the door, and do whatever they do to each other in private. Their real agenda is the demise of traditional marraige and families.

So do you honestly believe that gays want to destroy the state of marriage, which is already in shambles?

 

[glockmail]

So do you honestly believe that gays want to destroy the state of marriage, which is already in shambles?

Liberalism has made some horrific impacts on marraige in the last 40 years, and this new tactic continues the agenda. Hopefully we can reverse the trend.