Wrong side of the debate ugh
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-10-2013, 03:14 PM
RE: Wrong side of the debate ugh
(25-10-2013 01:59 PM)Elesjei Wrote:  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.

The problem is the word 'liberal' has lost its meaning. Yes, 'classic liberalism' from the Age of Enlightenment was about progressing civil rights. But that meaning is lost today, and today the people who label themselves 'liberal' favor the old system that existed before classic liberalism where people are forced into into doing things against their will.

For example, today a 'classic liberal' would argue that it's immoral to force people to put money into social security. They feel it's your body, your life, your right to decide what to do with it, so if you want to sign a waiver that you will never ask government or society to provide you a safety net, then it's YOUR right to do so. Today's liberals feel the opposite and have reverted to the system that existed throughout human civilization before classic liberalism, namely that whoever controls the government, can force you to do things against your will, like pay into social security.

'Classic liberals' believe it's your body and your right to do with it what you want, even if that is shooting it full of heroin. Today's liberals, however, believe in the old system that the government will tell you what you can and cannot do with your body; your body is property of the state.

on and on. So the hard part is we use the words to mean different things. Same with socialism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2013, 03:14 PM
RE: Wrong side of the debate ugh
(25-10-2013 03:03 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(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?

You're kidding, right? Marriage has been a legal matter since the founding of the U.S., legislated by the states.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2013, 03:50 PM
RE: Wrong side of the debate ugh
No, I'm not kidding. It's a part of the US history that liberals pretend never happened. From wikipedia:

In the United States, until the mid-19th century, common-law marriages were recognized as valid, but thereafter some states began to invalidate common-law marriages. Common-law marriages, if recognized, are valid, notwithstanding the absence of a marriage license.

And:

The original concept of a common-law marriage is a marriage that is considered valid by both partners, but has not been formally registered with a state or church registry, or a formal religious service. In effect, the act of the couple representing themselves to others as being married acts as the evidence that they are married.

Thus, during the period of classic liberalism in most states getting a license was not required. You were married if you felt you were married, and it wasn't the state's business. Some states put restrictions in place for health reasons, but others placed no restrictions on marriage.

When marriage restrictions picked up pace was during eugenics movement:

History of Eugenics:

Beginning with Connecticut in 1896, many states enacted marriage laws with eugenic criteria, prohibiting anyone who was "epileptic, imbecile or feeble-minded" from marrying.... methods of eugenics were applied to reformulate more restrictive definitions of white racial purity in existing state laws banning interracial marriage: the so-called anti-miscegenation laws. The most famous example of the influence of eugenics and its emphasis on strict racial segregation on such "anti-miscegenation" legislation was Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924.

And if you read about the history of eugenics, such as: Defending the Master Race: Conservation, Eugenics, and the Legacy of Madison Grant you'll see that it was a progressive movement backed by liberal intellectuals. If this were the 1920's, chances are you'd be supportive of the eugenics movement.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2013, 04:03 PM
Wrong side of the debate ugh
(25-10-2013 01:21 PM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  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......

If we allow gays to marry and normalize homosexuality, then soon lots of people will choose a gay lifestyle,
and there wont be enough procreation, and the human race will die out.

Thats the best I can come up with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes black_squirrel's post
25-10-2013, 04:20 PM
RE: Wrong side of the debate ugh
(25-10-2013 03:50 PM)frankksj Wrote:  No, I'm not kidding. It's a part of the US history that liberals pretend never happened. From wikipedia:

In the United States, until the mid-19th century, common-law marriages were recognized as valid, but thereafter some states began to invalidate common-law marriages. Common-law marriages, if recognized, are valid, notwithstanding the absence of a marriage license.

And:

The original concept of a common-law marriage is a marriage that is considered valid by both partners, but has not been formally registered with a state or church registry, or a formal religious service. In effect, the act of the couple representing themselves to others as being married acts as the evidence that they are married.

Thus, during the period of classic liberalism in most states getting a license was not required. You were married if you felt you were married, and it wasn't the state's business. Some states put restrictions in place for health reasons, but others placed no restrictions on marriage.

When marriage restrictions picked up pace was during eugenics movement:

History of Eugenics:

Beginning with Connecticut in 1896, many states enacted marriage laws with eugenic criteria, prohibiting anyone who was "epileptic, imbecile or feeble-minded" from marrying.... methods of eugenics were applied to reformulate more restrictive definitions of white racial purity in existing state laws banning interracial marriage: the so-called anti-miscegenation laws. The most famous example of the influence of eugenics and its emphasis on strict racial segregation on such "anti-miscegenation" legislation was Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924.


The recognition of common law marriage is not the issue. There were laws in every state that governed marriage. Common law marriage is still recognized in many states.

Mixed race marriages were considered unnatural and immoral long before those laws.

Quote:And if you read about the history of eugenics, such as: Defending the Master Race: Conservation, Eugenics, and the Legacy of Madison Grant you'll see that it was a progressive movement backed by liberal intellectuals. If this were the 1920's, chances are you'd be supportive of the eugenics movement.

I really hate when people do that. Go fuck yourself.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2013, 04:35 PM
RE: Wrong side of the debate ugh
(25-10-2013 04:03 PM)black_squirrel Wrote:  
(25-10-2013 01:21 PM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  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......

If we allow gays to marry and normalize homosexuality, then soon lots of people will choose a gay lifestyle,
and there wont be enough procreation, and the human race will die out.

Thats the best I can come up with.

Very nice. Thanks!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2013, 04:37 PM
RE: Wrong side of the debate ugh
(25-10-2013 04:20 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(25-10-2013 03:50 PM)frankksj Wrote:  No, I'm not kidding. It's a part of the US history that liberals pretend never happened. From wikipedia:

In the United States, until the mid-19th century, common-law marriages were recognized as valid, but thereafter some states began to invalidate common-law marriages. Common-law marriages, if recognized, are valid, notwithstanding the absence of a marriage license.

And:

The original concept of a common-law marriage is a marriage that is considered valid by both partners, but has not been formally registered with a state or church registry, or a formal religious service. In effect, the act of the couple representing themselves to others as being married acts as the evidence that they are married.

Thus, during the period of classic liberalism in most states getting a license was not required. You were married if you felt you were married, and it wasn't the state's business. Some states put restrictions in place for health reasons, but others placed no restrictions on marriage.

When marriage restrictions picked up pace was during eugenics movement:

History of Eugenics:

Beginning with Connecticut in 1896, many states enacted marriage laws with eugenic criteria, prohibiting anyone who was "epileptic, imbecile or feeble-minded" from marrying.... methods of eugenics were applied to reformulate more restrictive definitions of white racial purity in existing state laws banning interracial marriage: the so-called anti-miscegenation laws. The most famous example of the influence of eugenics and its emphasis on strict racial segregation on such "anti-miscegenation" legislation was Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924.


The recognition of common law marriage is not the issue. There were laws in every state that governed marriage. Common law marriage is still recognized in many states.

Mixed race marriages were considered unnatural and immoral long before those laws.

Quote:And if you read about the history of eugenics, such as: Defending the Master Race: Conservation, Eugenics, and the Legacy of Madison Grant you'll see that it was a progressive movement backed by liberal intellectuals. If this were the 1920's, chances are you'd be supportive of the eugenics movement.

I really hate when people do that. Go fuck yourself.

Can't we just try to stay on topic and be friendly?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2013, 05:08 PM
RE: Wrong side of the debate ugh
Speaking of slippery slope arguments...





What about arguing from the perspective of tradition? It seems like there might be studies on the impact of tradition on things like social cohesion and maintaining a stable community or maybe how dismantling a culture's traditions leads to the eventual downfall of the culture itself (aka "the terrorists win").

Good luck!

"I feel as though the camera is almost a kind of voyeur in Mr. Beans life, and you just watch this bizarre man going about his life in the way that he wants to."

-Rowan Atkinson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2013, 05:44 PM
RE: Wrong side of the debate ugh
(25-10-2013 01:21 PM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  ...
We are on gay marriage right now and Will refuses to be against because he's gay
...

Is your name Grace, by any chance?

Rolleyes

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
25-10-2013, 06:06 PM
RE: Wrong side of the debate ugh
Rev is on the right track.
I had a good long post arguing against Gay Marriage ages ago. Might be worth a read, though don't bother going looking for it because I can't remember when or where I posted it.

I'm personally not really pro gay marriage, but only because I'm anti-marriage to begin with.
I'm only pro gay marriage in the sense of equality.

But yea, make the argument that all marriage is stupid.
How it's some religious ceremony that belittles women. Say how back in the day a father would give the brides father a pig or something so his son could marry his daughter. Effectively meaning he just brought this lady. Thus belittles women.
Or how it was often used to solidify an alliance between two families/tribes/countries/dynasties/etc.. commonly with "love" not playing a role in it. Or how young people (like 11, 12, 13) were (and are in some places in the world) made to marry. Gandhi married at 13 if IIRC.

Argue how spouse abuse rates increase during marriage. Women (and men though but it's more commonly women) are emotionally and physically abused and it often goes unreported, probably because the victim is too scared.
Argue how women are still discriminated against in a marriage. ie: expected to stay home and clean, have a cook meal ready for the husband etc..

Argue that divorce favors the women which is sexist. And divorces can be expensive, especially if lawyers get involved, and not so good for any children involved.

You could argue that it makes people unhappy. That they may be with the same person that they use to love but no longer and some people might not be in a financial position to get out or it could be a cultural thing ie: just look at old people, divorce was never herd of back in the day and so nobody got divorced because it was "taboo".


I'm sure you could find a ton more reasons why marriage is a load of bollocks waste of time.
And than once you've made your case against marriage, add that by allow gay marriage you are strengthening the marriage institution in the sense that you are saying marriage is okay when what we should be doing is discouraging marriage.


OH and tell your gay friend I said he's a douche.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes earmuffs's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: