Wrong side of the debate ugh
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-10-2013, 01:21 PM
Wrong side of the debate ugh
Ok so my friends and I like to have debates for fun. Yea we are weird. We are on gay marriage right now and Will refuses to be against because he's gay (he is such a buttface that is not even an excuse, he just wants to be in the easy side). So I am going to cheat by begging you guys to help me.
I am grasping at straws here. Anyone have any non-religious arguments against legalizing gay marriage? Doesn't even have to be logical, at this point I'll take anything. I hate losing, but at least if I have to lose I can go down fighting. So far all I've got is....uhhh......
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2013, 01:35 PM
RE: Wrong side of the debate ugh
Well if it doesn't have to be logical...

If gay people would get married their gayness ( a bit of equivocation , gay=happy) will resonate and straight peoples marriage would look bad in comparison, so that would lead to more divorces.

. . . ................................ ......................................... . [Image: 2dsmnow.gif] Eat at Joe's
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Slowminded's post
25-10-2013, 01:35 PM
RE: Wrong side of the debate ugh
IMO there is never a justifiable reason for denying people their free will. We libertarians can say that because we have ALWAYS been opposed to denying people any family union they want, even in the 1980's when the US Supreme Court ruled it was proper to lock gay people up for engaging in such 'unspeakable acts'.

Of course, liberals, imo, have a harder time taking the moral high ground. They created the ban on gay marriage in the first place when in the 1920's they imposed marriage licensing laws in order to engineer a superior Aryan race (these laws banned inter-racial marriage as well as gay marriage). And throughout the 20th century liberals have agreed with conservatives that gay people should be locked up in jail. Only within the past few years have they finally come to accept that libertarians were right all along and that it was an atrocious human rights violation to deny people the basic right to form a family.

Therefore, the defense I would make against your gay friend is that, if he's a Democrat, just a few years his fellow Democrats were arguing he should be locked up in jail. Thus they are NOT the party of tolerance. It's just that today they happen to be more comfortable around gay people than Republicans.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2013, 01:44 PM
RE: Wrong side of the debate ugh
Oh, and here's an argument against your friend.

Ask him, if a brother and sister wanted to get married, one was sterilized so they couldn't have their own (deformed) kids but would adopt, thus they have a non-traditional family, but they're not hurting anyone, does your gay friend think the marriage licensing laws and restrictions should be removed to allow such a family union?

Chances are he'll say "NO". I want them to accept my non-traditional family, but I refuse to accept theirs. Then you can call him a hypocrite.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like frankksj's post
25-10-2013, 01:45 PM
RE: Wrong side of the debate ugh
(25-10-2013 01:35 PM)Slowminded Wrote:  Well if it doesn't have to be logical...

If gay people would get married their gayness ( a bit of equivocation , gay=happy) will resonate and straight peoples marriage would look bad in comparison, so that would lead to more divorces.

I wonder if there is any credible research about the spread of gayness through exposure to those who aren't gay. Or the threat of happy marriages against not so happy marriages. I am going to look in to this.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2013, 01:46 PM
RE: Wrong side of the debate ugh
(25-10-2013 01:44 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Oh, and here's an argument against your friend.

Ask him, if a brother and sister wanted to get married, one was sterilized so they couldn't have their own (deformed) kids but would adopt, thus they have a non-traditional family, but they're not hurting anyone, does your gay friend think the marriage licensing laws and restrictions should be removed to allow such a family union?

Chances are he'll say "NO". I want them to accept my non-traditional family, but I refuse to accept theirs. Then you can call him a hypocrite.

I like this. Kind of a slippery slope idea. If we allow gay marriage we will be forced to open our minds to other sorts of marriages also.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2013, 01:59 PM
RE: Wrong side of the debate ugh
(25-10-2013 01:35 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Of course, liberals, imo, have a harder time taking the moral high ground. They created the ban on gay marriage in the first place when in the 1920's they imposed marriage licensing laws in order to engineer a superior Aryan race (these laws banned inter-racial marriage as well as gay marriage). And throughout the 20th century liberals have agreed with conservatives that gay people should be locked up in jail. Only within the past few years have they finally come to accept that libertarians were right all along and that it was an atrocious human rights violation to deny people the basic right to form a family.

By "liberals", do you mean Democrats? Because liberalism - the political ideology - is about progressing civil rights in all areas of society. If someone wants to ban inter-racial marriage and imprison homosexuals, I don't see how that person would be considered a liberal.

A liberal might not act on a specific issue, such as not promoting the legalization of same-sex marriage in a society where it has always been illegal. But acting to restrict rights by introducing a ban on same-sex marriage would not be an act of a liberal. Liberals are defined by moving forward on rights, not backward.

If something can be destroyed by the truth, it might be worth destroying.

[Image: ZcC2kGl.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Elesjei's post
25-10-2013, 02:07 PM (This post was last modified: 25-10-2013 02:12 PM by ridethespiral.)
RE: Wrong side of the debate ugh
You can make a weak argument for the cost of providing benefits to homosexual spouses.

You can make a really weak argument about the spread of blood born disease through sodomy (I can't believe I just typed that).

I think there are some valid points regarding artificial insemination that can be made. I actually do think that if choose to partner with the same sex that part of that life choice means not having biological kids and instead adopting or fostering (I just think that population control is the major benefit of the gay movement as it pertains to the rest of the world).

Otherwise you are left to argue form a traditionalist perspective and not much else.

Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ridethespiral's post
25-10-2013, 02:37 PM
RE: Wrong side of the debate ugh
You can make a case against all marriage, IE: there should be no government benefits or involvement at all. But that ends up being an "In a perfect world" argument but it's really the only secular one that isn't based on bigotry or slippery slope arguments.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Revenant77x's post
25-10-2013, 03:03 PM
RE: Wrong side of the debate ugh
(25-10-2013 02:37 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  You can make a case against all marriage, IE: there should be no government benefits or involvement at all. But that ends up being an "In a perfect world" argument but it's really the only secular one that isn't based on bigotry or slippery slope arguments.

Why is that a 'perfect world' argument? Before the eugenics movement in the 1920's, in most US states, the government played no role at all in marriage. It was purely a voluntary union between two or more consenting adults. What problems do you feel this created which were addressed by the government getting involved, so that it's impossible to go back to that system?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: