Another State Legalizes gay Marriage

[Strike For The South]

If its not important why are you defending it. You should want his

[Askthepizzaguy]

I don't believe a 3 versus 1 debate is fair. Tuff is not being allowed enough time to respond to all our points, because there are so many drowning him out.

Tuff, let's say for the moment you were correct. The dogpile prevents you from explaining your point properly, I think.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I don't believe a 3 versus 1 debate is fair. Tuff is not being allowed enough time to respond to all our points, because there are so many drowning him out.

Tuff, let's say for the moment you were correct. The dogpile prevents you from explaining your point properly, I think.

No it is fine - I don't feel righteous unless I'm being attacked on all fronts. I'm off to bed. It is always easier to thrust a blade than to defend yourself from one effectively.

[Artorius Maximus]

Am I the only one here who is against this? Seriously, the government is taking this matter too seriously. Marriage should be defined as it always has been, a union between a man and a woman. I'm tolerant of civil unions, but don't go calling it "marriage," that butchers the original meaning of it.

[Strike For The South]

Am I the only one here who is against this? Seriously, the government is taking this matter too seriously. Marriage should be defined as it always has been, a union between a man and a woman. I'm tolerant of civil unions, but don't go calling it "marriage," that butchers the original meaning of it.

So does a 50% divorce rate WHY AM I STARTING AGIAN@!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Askthepizzaguy]

I've taken that into account. You believe what you're saying, and I respect that. I wish we had infinite time so that we could understand each other better.

That being said, in order to truly win this debate, (in my eyes... not that my opinion matters) you do need to explain why we should prevent gays from marrying, and focus on just that point. Taxes and biology are indeed separate matters.

Good luck, and good night.

I need sleep too.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Am I the only one here who is against this? Seriously, the government is taking this matter too seriously. Marriage should be defined as it always has been, a union between a man and a woman. I'm tolerant of civil unions, but don't go calling it "marriage," that butchers the original meaning of it.

Okay.

Now, tell me why.

[Koga No Goshi]

I like Tuff. Honestly I do. It's not personal. He was just wrong on this issue. He was arguing personal preference rather than objective reasons that a distinction of separate and not equal rights should be enshrined into law. Tuff, you can not like the idea, or feel that straight marriage and childbearing is special, but I'm of the opinion that your civic duty in a democracy is not to only support extension of equal rights to people you approve of, or whose decisions you will always like. Maybe that's the distinction Don tried to make before bumbling out, not sure.

Why not, it came out of nowhere - maybe it will go back there when people get a real issue to cry about?

This is, Tuff, what i feel about people who strongly oppose gay marriage. They are spending so much time and energy opposing something that will never adversely affect them in any way. I truly don't understand it. I'm not asking you to say you "celebrate" gay marriage or homosexual people or their lifestyles. But to respect their right to equal rights in whatever form of family they choose to create, even if it's one you would never want to touch. This is, in my mind, no different from the antimiscegenation laws of the past. You marrying your present girlfriend would have been illegal and without legal recognition or rights 100 years ago. 75 years ago even. And people argued the same kind of thing, that the white race and the white family and white values in America should have special recognition.

You're not a bad guy, you're just misled on this one. It is the same thing as laws we all agree were bad in the past.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I've taken that into account. You believe what you're saying, and I respect that. I wish we had infinite time so that we could understand each other better.

That being said, in order to truly win this debate, (in my eyes... not that my opinion matters) you do need to explain why we should prevent gays from marrying, and focus on just that point. Taxes and biology are indeed separate matters.

Good luck, and good night.

I need sleep too.

Well simply because they don't satisfy the legal, reasonable or moral requirements that civil marriage necessitates without opening it up to all other relationships, thereby making the institution untenable. I thought I had made the case? It may nopt be suitable for you, but I think it is suitable for most.

No explanation will be suitable for all.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I like Tuff. Honestly I do. It's not personal. He was just wrong on this issue. He was arguing personal preference rather than objective reasons that a distinction of separate and not equal rights should be enshrined into law. Tuff, you can not like the idea, or feel that straight marriage and childbearing is special, but I'm of the opinion that your civic duty in a democracy is not to only support extension of equal rights to people you approve of, or whose decisions you will always like. Maybe that's the distinction Don tried to make before bumbling out, not sure.



This is, Tuff, what i feel about people who strongly oppose gay marriage. They are spending so much time and energy opposing something that will never adversely affect them in any way. I truly don't understand it. I'm not asking you to say you "celebrate" gay marriage or homosexual people or their lifestyles. But to respect their right to equal rights in whatever form of family they choose to create, even if it's one you would never want to touch. This is, in my mind, no different from the antimiscegenation laws of the past. You marrying your present girlfriend would have been illegal and without legal recognition or rights 100 years ago. 75 years ago even. And people argued the same kind of thing, that the white race and the white family and white values in America should have special recognition.

You're not a bad guy, you're just misled on this one. It is the same thing as laws we all agree were bad in the past.

If I were with my ex girlfriend I'd be glad for anti-miscegenation laws. My current GF is an Irish/German Catholic. Thank the good lord.

[Strike For The South]

Well simply because they don't satisfy the legal, reasonable or moral requirements that civil marriage necessitates without opening it up to all other relationships, [/B]thereby making the institution untenable. I thought I had made the case? It may nopt be suitable for you, but I think it is suitable for most.

No explanation will be suitable for all.

The slippery slope argument has been used against every progressive movement since the beginning of time and the blacks are not raping the whites, asians are not the majority and we are not speaking spainish or German .

anti-miscegnation? Really? Dear me

[Koga No Goshi]

Well simply because they don't satisfy the legal, reasonable or moral requirements that civil marriage necessitates without opening it up to all other relationships, thereby making the institution untenable. I thought I had made the case? It may nopt be suitable for you, but I think it is suitable for most.

No explanation will be suitable for all.

P.S. Tuff I have enjoyed going back and forth and reading your opinion, I hope you do not feel harassed. I believe I speak for Strike and ATPG that we would all still take ya for a drink. ;) Especially Strike.

And Tuff I think you meant you would be AGAINST anti-miscegenation laws. Not for them. :) Miscegenation = mixing or cohabitating of members of different groups. Might have just been a typo.

[ICantSpellDawg]

The slippery slope argument has been used against every progressive movement since the beginning of time and the blacks are not raping the whites, asians are not the majority and we are not speaking spainish or German .

Actually, I'd wager that black rape of white women is higher now than it was during slavery. That would be a cynical bet to win, eh? At least in NYC the rate is higher than it was. Where is that KKK smilie?

Seriosuly though, I liked dons point that normally the slippery slope is a logical fallacy EXCEPT that in the States both sides tend to jump down the slide head first as soon as they see it.

The US political system has literally burst wide open the "fallacy" of the slippery slope. You are usinf miscegenation as a pretext for gay marriage. If you had told people 70 years ago that a repeal of miscigenation laws would be used as a foundation for gay marriage they never would have changed the amendment. You laugh at the slipperey slope until you use it directly and it is hilarious.

[Strike For The South]

I dont think anyone has attacked anyone elses character. I hold no animosity towards anyone here and If I met anyone in RL I would feed you and then drink you under the table swear to God!

Actually, I'd wager that black rape of white women is higher now than it was during slavery. That would be a cynical bet to win, eh? At least in NYC the rate is higher. Where is that KKK smilie?

There where almost no blacks in NYC during slavery. Ever heard of the great migration?

[Askthepizzaguy]

Well simply because they don't satisfy the legal, reasonable or moral requirements that civil marriage necessitates without opening it up to all other relationships, thereby making the institution untenable. I thought I had made the case? It may nopt be suitable for you, but I think it is suitable for most.

No explanation will be suitable for all.

This is much the same argument as was used when denying the right of people from different races from marrying. That being said, I still have to treat it as a legitimate argument.

It doesn't satisfy the legal requirement... it's illegal because it's illegal? That argument makes no sense.

It doesn't meet the reasonable requirement. There's no authority here on what's reasonable, and you haven't stated why it's unreasonable. There is room here for an argument but it hasnt been made yet.

Why is it unreasonable?

Moral requirements... people once contended that allowing gays to even live together was immoral, to have sex or kiss or even have gay thoughts was immoral. Since we've conceded that the church's standard of morality is not the basis of law, we have to dismiss this religious-based argument.

Available to all other relationships, making the institution untenable. Are you referring to polygamy, underage unions, or bestiality? If so, then make your case. But I would suggest that it's unreasonable to compare these to unions between two adult consenting partners.

The floor is open to discussion on that point, but I still fail to see the case be made for why gays should not be allowed to marry, which is the point.

[Koga No Goshi]

Actually, I'd wager that black rape of white women is higher now than it was during slavery. That would be a cynical bet to win, eh? At least in NYC the rate is higher. Where is that KKK smilie?

I woudln't be surprised to read that rape, period, is up. It is very strongly correlated with men being down & out, poor, laid off, unemployed, or generally feeling powerless. And an increase in black rape rates in NYC is probably just because more blacks live there now, rather than being black men are raping white women more often than before.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I woudln't be surprised to read that rape, period, is up. It is very strongly correlated with men being down & out, poor, laid off, unemployed, or generally feeling powerless. And an increase in black rape rates in NYC is probably just because more blacks live there now, rather than being black men are raping white women more often than before.

Irrespective of the reason for its increase is the reality that it has increased. People warned of it and would be eerily satisfied by their correct prediction, especially if they were into that thing, deep down in their naughty parts.

Of course I've heard of the migration. I'm sure that the people of New York wouldn't have been so pro-abolition if they knew about it or that the violent crime rate would go up by such insane numbers because of it.

[Strike For The South]

Irrespective of the reason for its increase is the reality that it has increased. People warned of it and would be eerily satisfied by their correct prediction, especially if they were into that thing, deep down in their naughty parts.

Your point is moot you ignored all my other examples. If you have an objection because of your religion thats fine but do not go down this road.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Your point is moot you ignored all my other examples. If you have an objection because of your religion thats fine but do not go down this road.

Hehehe. I won't. Every conversation can be veered off into the non-issue.

Im just making historical judgement calls. People were insane racists - even the ones who hated racism. It is almost humorous, even when I think of all the people who called my people white apes.

My objection isn't merely religious. People always try to take any logical legitimacy away from the opposition by claiming that any opposing arguement is founded in illogical thought patterns. Let me tell you - Equality is an illogical, anti-evolutionary and faith-based concept as well. We all start from one of those and anyone who doesn't I wouldn't trust to wash my shoes.

[Koga No Goshi]

Irrespective of the reason for its increase is the reality that it has increased. People warned of it and would be eerily satisfied by their correct prediction, especially if they were into that thing, deep down in their naughty parts.

Well we've already had the homophobia gallery speak up, let's not get into white flight, it's very OT. :) Poverty = crime and in the U.S. sadly race still largely = poverty or wealth. So it will remain easy for some time for racists to find easy sanctuary in justifying their attitudes by pointing at crime. Regardless of the fact that it was the Irish committing those violent petty crimes on the streets in the 1800's when they were similarly the near bottom rung of society.

Equality is an illogical, anti-evolutionary and faith-based concept as well. We all start from one of those and anyone who doesn't I wouldn't trust to wash my shoes.

There's nothing faith-based about it. Not all men are born equal at everything and that's not what the Constitution meant. It meant that our ideal is to strive towards a world where every man can be treated as equal and go forward and pursue things in life as equally as the next man as possible. The fact that we might say it's anti-evolutionary or even illogical doesn't change the fact that it's the one and only thing that makes democracy in our country at all worth the trouble and worth fighting for, and should not be selectively applied or removed based on the base prejudices of the masses.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Of course I've heard of the migration. I'm sure that the people of New York wouldn't have been so pro-abolition if they knew about it or that the violent crime rate would go up by such insane numbers because of it.

I contend that slavery meets the requirements of a violent crime. Therefore, since the abolition of slavery, violent crime has gone down by a measurable percentage.

This is also off topic, so lets stay focused.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Well we've already had the homophobia gallery speak up, let's not get into white flight, it's very OT. :) Poverty = crime and in the U.S. sadly race still largely = poverty or wealth. So it will remain easy for some time for racists to find easy sanctuary in justifying their attitudes by pointing at crime. Regardless of the fact that it was the Irish committing those violent petty crimes on the streets in the 1800's when they were similarly the near bottom rung of society.

you're right. off topic

[Strike For The South]

you're right. off topic

I want stats to back that up

[Koga No Goshi]

I want stats to back that up

Your stats are biased. They came from Anheuser-Busch. :)

[Strike For The South]

Your stats are biased. They came from Anheuser-Busch. :)

way to pricey. Boxed wine and Keystone light.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Off topic, off topic, off topic~



Back in line, soldiers!

[Koga No Goshi]

Off topic, off topic, off topic~



Back in line, soldiers!

Hell no, we won't go!

FRAGICIDE MODE ENGAGED!



Just kidding.

*Gets back in line*

Back on topic, taken straight from Wikipedia

Homosexual behavior has been observed among 1,500 species, and in 500 of those it is well documented. This discovery constitutes a major argument against those calling into question the biological legitimacy or naturalness of homosexuality, or those regarding it as a meditated social decision. For example, male penguin couples have been documented to mate for life, build nests together, and to use a stone as a surrogate egg in nesting and brooding. In a well-publicized story from 2004, the Central Park Zoo in the United States replaced one male couple's stone with a fertile egg, which the couple then raised as their own offspring.

The genetic basis of animal homosexuality has been studied in the fly Drosophila melanogaster. Here, multiple genes have been identified that can cause homosexual courtship and mating. These genes are thought to control behavior through pheromones as well as altering the structure of the animal's brains. These studies have also investigated the influence of environment on the likelihood of flies displaying homosexual behavior.

Georgetown University professor Janet Mann has specifically theorized that homosexual behavior, at least in dolphins, is an evolutionary advantage that minimizes intraspecies aggression, especially among males. Studies indicating prenatal homosexuality in certain animal species have had social and political implications surrounding the gay rights debate.

Yes, people really study this stuff, and no, it's not all just up in the air and anyone's opinion is as good as anyone else's.

[Askthepizzaguy]

To argue in place of our opponent, one might suggest that we should be more civilized than the animals, and that not everything that is natural is healthy or good.

How would you respond to that observation?

(I like the debate, so I'd rather see a vigorous defense of the opposing side.)

[Koga No Goshi]

To argue in place of our opponent, one might suggest that we should be more civilized than the animals, and that not everything that is natural is healthy or good.

How would you respond to that observation?

(I like the debate, so I'd rather see a vigorous defense of the opposing side.)

I wanted to add this too from the Psychology Wiki, though it's not strictly in response to your question, more in response to the general idea that homosexuality is an obsession, fettish, or mental disorder:

In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the revised Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) after intense debate. They stated that homosexuality "does not necessarily constitute a psychiatric disorder." Effectively, this saw its official acceptance as a viable sexual orientation and saw the increase in gay liberation throughout the Western world.

Many other associations across the world followed suit soon after. The American Psychoanalytic Association made similar steps and began accepting openly homosexual men and women. However, it wasn't until 1992 that the World Health Organisation ceased to classify homosexuality as a mental disorder, followed by the UK Government in 1994, and the Chinese Psychiatric Association in 2001.

Basically no major, non-religious psychological or world mental health organization considers it to be an obsession or fettish or sexual dysfunction, which would almost certainly be qualified as a mental disorder.

In more specific regard to your question: I agree, we should be more civilized than animals. I have not read anything, anywhere, about an animal flipping out and pecking or beating another animal to death for being homosexual. So we should at least hold ourselves unquestionably to that standard, at a bare minimum.

As far as not everything that is natural is good, I suppose to a degree I would have to agree. Which includes heterosexual couplings and marriages. Not all are good. Most end in divorce, in fact. So where gay marriage would fit into ruining or tarnishing or degrading an elevated practice among mainstream human populations continues to elude the argument.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Now, you're thinking.

Good response, Koga. Very on-point and decisive.