LGBT Marriage

[TwistofRKO]

People are NOT animals, and animals have no discernment of morality.

Using the immoral discretion of other people is a red herring. Of course blatant hypocrisy is wrong, at the same time, two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[Razor]

People are NOT animals,

Yeah we are. We're just smarter than your average bear.

and animals have no discernment of morality.

Evolution has given them a sense of Altruism, just to name one moral act. Animals regularly give food to other names when they are starving. They regularly raise the children of other animals that have died, though the act of raising that child renders them unable to have another and therefore raise their own evolutionary fitness.

How is giving food to a starving animal not moral?

Using the immoral discretion of other people is a red herring.

I'm using the blatant hypocrisy of the side that claims homosexuality is immoral to show they are arguing from a place of hypocrisy and in bad faith. That's not a red herring. If anything, you should have said it was a Ad Hominem fallacy, of which it sorta was. But since the bad qualities I outlined helped my point (the people arguing against supposed Sexual Immorality are sexually immoral themselves, and so would not know what being sexually moral is) without defaming my opponent with completely irrelevant facts, then it is not a Ad Hominem fallacy.

Of course blatant hypocrisy is wrong, at the same time, two wrongs don't make a right.

I'm still wondering where homosexuality is wrong if it occurs naturally. Did God make a completely immoral animal kingdom?

 

[Mighty NorCal]

People are NOT animals, and animals have no discernment of morality.

Using the immoral discretion of other people is a red herring. Of course blatant hypocrisy is wrong, at the same time, two wrongs don't make a right.

So what exactly should a gay person do, Mr.Twist, to perserve your precious "morality"

If I told you tomorrow that loving a woman was now considered "immoral" then what the fuck exactly would you, or could you do about the way you FEEL? So then, what exacty do you expect gay people to do about how they FEEL? It has FUCK ALL to do with morality. I dont fuck girls becuase fucking guys is "immoral" I fuck girls becuase they make my dick hard, and men dont. Hello.

 

[Alex]

People are NOT animals, and animals have no discernment of morality.

Using the immoral discretion of other people is a red herring. Of course blatant hypocrisy is wrong, at the same time, two wrongs don't make a right.

So what are we???

Insects???
Robots???

Last time I checked humans are mammals which is a type of animal.

OT: I see no reason why they can't be married if they truly ove each other that's what matters.

To answer with another question, is marriage neccessary??? If two people (straight, gay, bi etc) love each other that much does a piece of paper saying they're married really matter that much.

 

[TwistofRKO]

the quotes you stacked dont even make fucking SENSE and you have addressed NONE of the points I have made whatsoever. Stop acting like a fucking baby, man up, and answer this shit

How is it dangerous for two people to love each other?

How will it effect you, or anyone else on planet earth negatively if they are allowed to get married?

Did you decide to like girls at your age of maturity, or did you just like them?

If there is no such thing as genetically gay genomes, then why is homosexuality widespread among the animal kingdom?

Who are YOU to tell people how they are allowed to feel?

What, exactly, is the positive in NOT allowing them to marry each other?

Dont answer me with some fuckwad quoting. Quote my fucking points, and actually directly answer them. Stop being a little punk bitch.

Its a complete waste of time, because you are clearly incapable of reading. I answered EVERY question in the last post.

One last time:

-Poorly asked question. Should be, Why is it dangerous for homosexuals to engage in sex? They are subjected to far greater health risks, including extremely higher rates in STDs, AIDs, and cancers than the natural heterosexual behavior.

-It flaunts immorality. Children adopted into these situations are more susceptible to trying homosexual behavior due to environmental factors, they will be placed into the same situation as one-parent children, lacking either a father or mother role model. (That's another issue that NEEDS to be addressed as it stands right now). How does any other bad action affect your daily life? Polygamy, incest, gang-violence, child abuse- that's way out of your sight? Sorry, I realize the world does not revolve around me. The world is a huge place, something you should learn.

-It naturally occurred, as it is the natural inclination.

-Because animals are animals. They have no morality. Why do you choose to treat homosexuals as nothing better than animals? Naturalness does not factor morality in sexual relationships.

-I'm not basing it upon my own feelings. Its basing it off of God, and facts. Who are you to judge my opinion as wrong? See, that's easy to do.

-You already asked this in a different form. It protects the morality of marriage itself (not necessarily all of those who practice it) and it protects children from being raised in harmful atmospheres.

THERE, I answered EVERY QUESTION, IN ORDER.

 

[FunKay the Inevitable]

In my opinion, it's a stupid idea to claim that Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transgenders are not allowed to marry. If they are two people who truly love one another then they should be allowed to marry. Why do they not have the right to have soemthing that people who are straight aren't. They haven't doen anything wrong or for that matter against the law. It's just really backward to believe that these people shouldn't be allowed the same rights as straights.

 

[info62]

-Poorly asked question. Should be, Why is it dangerous for homosexuals to engage in sex? They are subjected to far greater health risks, including extremely higher rates in STDs, AIDs, and cancers than the natural heterosexual behavior.

That's not true. You are not more likely to catch an STD/STI by having sex with somebody of the same gender. You are more likely to catch an STD/STI if you engage in sex with somebody without knowing whether they have an STD and not bothering to use protection. You make it sound as if you're safe to have unprotected sex as long as it is somebody of an opposite gender.

I do not believe you have the stance that you have purely out of concern for those being wed. If too asexual men wanted to be married would you be against that too? It's not like they are in danger of catching anything since they are asexual, so according to you they are not a 'dangerous' couple, right?

 

[Schizophrenic]

-Poorly asked question. Should be, Why is it dangerous for homosexuals to engage in sex? They are subjected to far greater health risks, including extremely higher rates in STDs, AIDs, and cancers than the natural heterosexual behavior.

The question you should ask yourself is "how will homosexuals engaging in sex effect me or my friends? Answer: it won't. Aren't we all at the same risk for STD's and AIDS and cancer if we chose to engage in unprotected sex? Plus it's none of your buisness what they do in their free time. And if you are really that nosey then maybe you should be grossed out by it.

-It flaunts immorality. Children adopted into these situations are more susceptible to trying homosexual behavior due to environmental factors, they will be placed into the same situation as one-parent children, lacking either a father or mother role model. (That's another issue that NEEDS to be addressed as it stands right now). How does any other bad action affect your daily life? Polygamy, incest, gang-violence, child abuse- that's way out of your sight? Sorry, I realize the world does not revolve around me. The world is a huge place, something you should learn.

Again with this immorality bs excuse? Who is to say what is immoral? I have yet to figure out that answer and so has everyone else. So are you also saying that one parent children will be in the same boat as homosexuals? I grew up living with a single mother and I am no worse off. I do not engage in homosexual activity. Why? Because as Norcal said, women make me hard. Men don't. And if you want to use the flaunting immorality excuse what about the single male and female cuples with the chicks wearing practically nothing and damn near fucking a guy on a park bench. That's immoral and since it's flaunts immorality then male/female marriage and love should be outlawed too! Am I right?

-I'm not basing it upon my own feelings. Its basing it off of God, and facts. Who are you to judge my opinion as wrong? See, that's easy to do.

People are basing opinions off a book that was written before ANY of us were here. And just like any other book people are gonna read it and take what they want from it. Whose to say that what we believe today from the bible wasn't misquoted and actually goes against what was meant.

Its not about how I feel, its about how God feels.

Can you take a picture of that texts that tells you exaclty what God thinks and feels? I'd love to see it as I am sure everyone else would as well

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Its a complete waste of time, because you are clearly incapable of reading. I answered EVERY question in the last post.

One last time:

-Poorly asked question. Should be, Why is it dangerous for homosexuals to engage in sex? They are subjected to far greater health risks, including extremely higher rates in STDs, AIDs, and cancers than the natural heterosexual behavior.

-It flaunts immorality. Children adopted into these situations are more susceptible to trying homosexual behavior due to environmental factors, they will be placed into the same situation as one-parent children, lacking either a father or mother role model. (That's another issue that NEEDS to be addressed as it stands right now). How does any other bad action affect your daily life? Polygamy, incest, gang-violence, child abuse- that's way out of your sight? Sorry, I realize the world does not revolve around me. The world is a huge place, something you should learn.

-It naturally occurred, as it is the natural inclination.

-Because animals are animals. They have no morality. Why do you choose to treat homosexuals as nothing better than animals? Naturalness does not factor morality in sexual relationships.

-I'm not basing it upon my own feelings. Its basing it off of God, and facts. Who are you to judge my opinion as wrong? See, that's easy to do.

-You already asked this in a different form. It protects the morality of marriage itself (not necessarily all of those who practice it) and it protects children from being raised in harmful atmospheres.

THERE, I answered EVERY QUESTION, IN ORDER.

thankyou, about fucking time.

Aye, they do. So what in the fuck exactly does that have to do with you, me, or anyone? If they love each other, and are willing to take such a risk, then hence forth. Also we are talking about MARRIAGE here, wouldnt marriages institute a reduction in said diseases through monogomy?

I am the one who should learn the world is a big place? I garuntee you 110% of the forum is dying laughing at YOU saying that to ME...anyways, it is immoral in YOUR mind. And when you teach children that, it is enhancing and teaching fucking bigotry to a new generation, and will cause mass depression and suicides for children who end up being gay, becuase of hatefull, ignorant FUCKS like you who teach them its bad to FEEL how they naturally FEEL

Of course it naturally occured. So how can you say that it doesnt work the same way? On what fucking planet does that even begin to make sense?

People are animals, with instincts, and natural feelings. This subject has fuck all to do with morality, and everything to do with bigotry. Have you even spoken with a gay person? Do you have any gay friends? Did you ask them if they chose to love who they love, or if they just did? I personally have plenty of gay friends who not ONLY suffer from depression and self loathing over the situation, but some of which who have PRAYED TO GOD, to make them wake up, and not be gay anymore. Do you think those people chose that? The self loathing that drove Kris Kanyon to commit suicide, do you think he fucking wanted that?

The only morality there is in marriage is commiting oneself to another person for the rest of your existance.

 

[DirtyJosé]

-It flaunts immorality. Children adopted into these situations are more susceptible to trying homosexual behavior due to environmental factors, they will be placed into the same situation as one-parent children, lacking either a father or mother role model. (That's another issue that NEEDS to be addressed as it stands right now). How does any other bad action affect your daily life? Polygamy, incest, gang-violence, child abuse- that's way out of your sight? Sorry, I realize the world does not revolve around me. The world is a huge place, something you should learn.

Wrong. This is an invalid argument. Based on a study published in 2005, via WebMD:

Oct.12, 2005 (Washington) -- Children growing up in same-sex parental households do not necessarily have differences in self-esteem, gender identity, or emotional problems from children growing up in heterosexual parent homes.

"There are a lot of children with at least one gay or lesbian parent," says Ellen C. Perrin, MD, professor of pediatrics at Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston. She revealed the findings at the American Academy of Pediatrics Conference and Exhibition.

Between 1 million and 6 million children in the U.S. are being reared by committed lesbian or gay couples, she says. Children being raised by same-sex parents were either born to a heterosexual couple, adopted, or conceived through artificial insemination.

"The vast consensus of all the studies shows that children of same-sex parents do as well as children whose parents are heterosexual in every way," she tells WebMD. "In some ways children of same-sex parents actually may have advantages over other family structures."

There's a lot more on it too, if you could care to recognize proven truths over sterotypes. Children raised by homosexual parents are PROVEN to be no more at risk of developing mental health issues. They are not "turned gay" by environmental factors, and in fact develop as normally as any child with heterosexual parents would.

So this arugment fails to show how same-sex marriage is harmful to anyone. How many more times would you like to be proven wrong?

 

[Razor]

So now same sex marriage shouldn't be allowed because the children will turn gay?

Do you pay attention to anyone ever in the history of the world when they announce they're gay?

The most recent cases of people announcing their gay is due to a society that just now is sorta accepting homosexuals for the normal people they are. That means that, yes, the society in which you find yourself now didn't always accept gay people. Let alone let them get together and adopt children.

What does that mean? That means that the millions of LBGT people in America right now are not there due to being raised by gay parents, simply because being gay was demonized to the point of beatings not 30 years ago. AIDs was seen as divine intervention against gay men in the 80s. If that was believed to be the case, then no gay man was going to be able to adopt a child.

So, my question. Where have all these gay people come from? They weren't raised by gay parents. If children turn gay under gay parents, then where did all of these gay people come from?

The minute you realize that gay people can come from straight couples is the minute you realize that those children are gay no matter who they are raised by. So your argument against LBGT marriages loses another leg to stand on.

Oh, and don't you dare quote any studies about adoptees being more apt for mental depression or suicidal thoughts when raised by gay parents. Those studies are horrendously broken, and do not account for the natural depression present in adopted children or the simple, naturally occurring depressive episodes found in all teenagers. Hormones, they do crazy things.

 

[TwistofRKO]

The question you should ask yourself is "how will homosexuals engaging in sex effect me or my friends? Answer: it won't. Aren't we all at the same risk for STD's and AIDS and cancer if we chose to engage in unprotected sex? Plus it's none of your buisness what they do in their free time. And if you are really that nosey then maybe you should be grossed out by it.

99% of what happens in the world has no impact on you. Child abuse 5,000 miles away has no impact on you directly. Can you still have an opinion whether or not its wrong?

Again with this immorality bs excuse? Who is to say what is immoral? I have yet to figure out that answer and so has everyone else. So are you also saying that one parent children will be in the same boat as homosexuals? I grew up living with a single mother and I am no worse off. I do not engage in homosexual activity. Why? Because as Norcal said, women make me hard. Men don't. And if you want to use the flaunting immorality excuse what about the single male and female cuples with the chicks wearing practically nothing and damn near fucking a guy on a park bench. That's immoral and since it's flaunts immorality then male/female marriage and love should be outlawed too! Am I right?

Thats immoral practice, and is illegal in most parts of the country.

There are no absolutes, but the high percentage of kids raised in one-parent homes experience adverse affects. I'm glad you didn't, genuinely, but that's not true in most cases.

People are basing opinions off a book that was written before ANY of us were here. And just like any other book people are gonna read it and take what they want from it. Whose to say that what we believe today from the bible wasn't misquoted and actually goes against what was meant.

Because it can still be traced back to original documents, and the punishment on sins is evident everywhere in the world.

Can you take a picture of that texts that tells you exaclty what God thinks and feels? I'd love to see it as I am sure everyone else would as well

Pick up your copy of the King James Bible and read it. Its the book where God talks to us. If you can read then ....

thankyou, about fucking time.

Aye, they do. So what in the fuck exactly does that have to do with you, me, or anyone? If they love each other, and are willing to take such a risk, then hence forth. Also we are talking about MARRIAGE here, wouldnt marriages institute a reduction in said diseases through monogomy?

Then why is incest wrong? You keep ducking what I'm asking you. Why give a crap about almost everything that happens in the world, since it doesn't affect you? Most people have opinions on TONS of things that don't affect them.

I am the one who should learn the world is a big place? I garuntee you 110% of the forum is dying laughing at YOU saying that to ME...anyways, it is immoral in YOUR mind. And when you teach children that, it is enhancing and teaching fucking bigotry to a new generation, and will cause mass depression and suicides for children who end up being gay, becuase of hatefull, ignorant FUCKS like you who teach them its bad to FEEL how they naturally FEEL

lol, I dont care. You are a long-tenured member and mod, of course people will brown-nose you.

It is immoral according to God. Its not a hard concept. I don't care if you agree, but for the 10000000th time, I'm basing its immorality off of what God says, not my opinion. I really hope you don't struggle with this anymore.

Teaching kids that? Society has brainwashed the rest for the last 20 years on the topic.

Of course it naturally occured. So how can you say that it doesnt work the same way? On what fucking planet does that even begin to make sense?

You have no proof of it happening the reverse way. How can you say that's what happens?

People are animals, with instincts, and natural feelings. This subject has fuck all to do with morality, and everything to do with bigotry. Have you even spoken with a gay person? Do you have any gay friends? Did you ask them if they chose to love who they love, or if they just did? I personally have plenty of gay friends who not ONLY suffer from depression and self loathing over the situation, but some of which who have PRAYED TO GOD, to make them wake up, and not be gay anymore. Do you think those people chose that? The self loathing that drove Kris Kanyon to commit suicide, do you think he fucking wanted that?

People are people, animals are animals. Animals have no conscious, at all.

Yes, I know a few gay people. I am friends with a few of them. The majority of the US (and world) are open to this practice, so what exactly is causing this loathing? One hateful person at Wal-Mart? I don't think so.

The only morality there is in marriage is commiting oneself to another person for the rest of your existance.

That is a pretty significant "only".

What if it WAS the truth though? What would you do? Nice way to sidestep the question buddy. Clearly one you dont have an answer for.

There's nothing to possibly answer. What would I be able to base it upon?

Wait a minute, did I ever use your name in my statement? NO! How is that statement unintelligent? It's not. You just used the same thing. You believe it's immoral most likely becasue that was the way you were raised and that's fine. But the fact is, everyone is born with the same rights and that includes all those mentioned in the title.

I didn't say your belief was unintelligent, yet your jab at the end regarding the other side.

Okay, but you didn't answer the other half of my post. If two asexual men were to wed would you still think that they are a "dangerous" couple, since they have 0% chance of passing on any STDs/STIs?

It would be harder to argue against legally, but the other points still would remain.

 

[gd]

It seems like the main problem here is that Twist believes God wrote the Bible, which is obviously completely false. Humans wrote the Bible, and while their writings may have been inspired by their intereactions with a holy being of some kind, that doesn't mean they couldn't have just put whatever the hell they want in it. What if Matthew got drunk one night and Mark dared him to put something in their about how God says people should eat their own feces? Would that mean you'd do it?

Also, comparing gay marriage to child abuse and incest is more than sketchy. With the last two, people are being victimized. Lives are being ruined. No one is being victimized in gay marriage.

Also, the fact that you pulled out the "I have a gay friend" argument solidifys the fact that you are indeed a homophob

 

[TwistofRKO]

It seems like the main problem here is that Twist believes God wrote the Bible, which is obviously completely false. Humans wrote the Bible, and while their writings may have been inspired by their intereactions with a holy being of some kind, that doesn't mean they couldn't have just put whatever the hell they want in it. What if Matthew got drunk one night and Mark dared him to put something in their about how God says people should eat their own feces? Would that mean you'd do it?

Also, comparing gay marriage to child abuse and incest is more than sketchy. With the last two, people are being victimized. Lives are being ruined. No one is being victimized in gay marriage.

Also, the fact that you pulled out the "I have a gay friend" argument solidifys the fact that you are indeed a homophob

That would never have happened. Everything in the Bible is there by the divine inspiration of God. If you don't believe that, I cant change that, but I do and am completely proud to base what I believe off of his word.

How is incest victimizing anyone if both participants are willing? And it's debatable if people are being victimized through gay marriage. I've elaborated, but it's been deemed off topic so I'll obey orders.

I wasn't the one who brought the "gay friend" up. I was asked directly if I knew any homosexuals, in which I replied appropriately.

 

[Blizz]

Wow, this guy just made my day. I don't think I have ever laughed the hard, EVER. Twist, seriously, just give up while you are behind.


Every single one of Twist's posts is overflowing with irony and hypocrisy, that it's fucking rediculous.

You still have not come up with an intelligent answer to the Norcal's question.
Their is homosexuality in the animal kingdom. Does a fucking walrus wake up one day and say, "You know what, I'm tired of being straight. I'm gonna start pounding guy's ass for now on." THE FUCK, seriously. It has all fuck to do with "morality". Norcal didn't ask you whether or not animals have morality. He asked you whether the animals CHOOSE to act in homosexuality. No they don't. Their fucking animals.

Whether you want to believe it or not, we ARE animals.

I like how you say that we are "brainwashed" into believing that homosexuality is wrong when you base your beliefs from a book written by man. Really, we are brainwashed? The bible is not to be taken literally, dipshit. Believe it or not, the bible is full of symbolism and metaphors that fucktarded biblethumpers take as being the LITERAL words of God.

I also like how you are constantly telling us that we are close-minded and ignorant for telling you that your beliefs are wrong, yet you do the exact same thing. Except, ya know with idiocracy and hypocrisy.

Homosexuality is not wrong. You still have not explained intelligently how two guys fucking up the ass affects you. How does it compare to children being molested by their parents or gangs murdering someone? It doesn't. Nobody is being harmed with guys fucking each other.

I have two fathers. Yes, my parents are gay. I assure you that I am completely normal, and have lived a normal life. Stop being so ignorant.

 

[SalvIsWin]

LGBT marriage supporters should not be making the argument, "How does it effect you?". Twist made the point that if two persons were to participate in an incestuous relationship willingly, how do that effect you? Yet we (society) still condemns it, and most people don't have a problem with that.

As far as Twist's argument of immorality, that shouldn't be argued either. Twist has already stated he is basing that off of his faith, which I think we can all agree is less than sufficient evidence to make a legal conclusion. Perhaps for Twist that is enough for him to personally decide that it is immoral, but I doubt any one would argue that Bible's text is reason enough to outlaw LGBT marriage.

The argument of children growing up in an adverse environment is flat wrong. Scientific studies have repeatedly shown that growing up with two mothers or two fathers does not significantly affect the child. Furthermore, there is typically a support system of other relatives or friends.

As far as the dangers of being a homosexual, Twist, you have stated STD's and cancer, neither of which are inherent to gay persons. STD's are contracted through unsafe sex with anonymous partners, and as another said, sleeping with another man (if you're also a man) does not increase the chance of an STD spreading. STD's are a societal problem that needs to be curbed in hetero- and homosexuals. As far as cancer goes, from what I know, there are certain cancers that AIDs victims are more susceptible to, and there that there is research to suggest that homosexuals live a lifestyle that increase their susceptibility to certain cancers.

STD's are a societal problem, not a homosexual problem, so I don't see that as a valid argument. Research suggests homosexuals lead a lifestyle that makes them more susceptible to certain cancers, but why is that a reason why they shouldn't be allowed to marry? Even if one were to concede that homosexuals lead a more dangerous lifestyle, why is that reason to not allow them to marry? You could argue that it's a reason for people to be heterosexual and not homosexual, but seeing as how it's not a choice (research and polling suggests this), that isn't reason at all.

If you think about it, your argument rests solely upon your belief that homosexuality is immoral because it's inferred in the Bible. That isn't a good enough reason to outlaw LGBT marriage, so what is your answer to this?

 

[FromTheSouth]

Just a question. Why is that not good enough? I mean, throughout this thread, time and again, his faith has been dismissed as BS. Do you have a reason why? Are you going to deny that our current legal system is not at least correlative to a religious system of justice?

It's not 100%, but to assume that his views are to be dismissed because they are religiously based is to ignore the fact that the legal system is based on "an eye for an eye." Anti-religious people like to say that the Bible is not a literal text. The stories are all allegory, yet, they continually point to that one statement, and act as if that is the one sentence in the Bible that is completely literal? That's ludicrous. If you "poke out an eye" you get a punishment that fits the crime. That one statement in the Bible, "an eye for an eye" is the basis of the entire system of punishment. To dimiss Twist's Christianity as a reason is he is wrong is simply not a strong argument.

Now, I couldn't care less about this issue. That doesn't make me a homophobe, insensitive, or anything else. I simply don't see what the big deal, and don't understand why laws need to be changed over hurt feelings. If you love someone, you love them, and that should be enough. Legally speaking, in what ways does not being allowed to call yourselves married infringing upon someone's personal welfare? Visitation rights, adoption, and transfer of estate are the only important issues that need to be adjusted legally. These hinder someone from living a full life as a human being.

 

[SalvIsWin]

Just a question. Why is that not good enough? I mean, throughout this thread, time and again, his faith has been dismissed as BS. Do you have a reason why? Are you going to deny that our current legal system is not at least correlative to a religious system of justice?

It's not 100%, but to assume that his views are to be dismissed because they are religiously based is to ignore the fact that the legal system is based on "an eye for an eye." Anti-religious people like to say that the Bible is not a literal text. The stories are all allegory, yet, they continually point to that one statement, and act as if that is the one sentence in the Bible that is completely literal? That's ludicrous. If you "poke out an eye" you get a punishment that fits the crime. That one statement in the Bible, "an eye for an eye" is the basis of the entire system of punishment. To dimiss Twist's Christianity as a reason is he is wrong is simply not a strong argument.

Now, I couldn't care less about this issue. That doesn't make me a homophobe, insensitive, or anything else. I simply don't see what the big deal, and don't understand why laws need to be changed over hurt feelings. If you love someone, you love them, and that should be enough. Legally speaking, in what ways does not being allowed to call yourselves married infringing upon someone's personal welfare? Visitation rights, adoption, and transfer of estate are the only important issues that need to be adjusted legally. These hinder someone from living a full life as a human being.

This isn't about religion, this is about why LGBT should not be allowed to marry. Previously I deconstructed Twist's reasons so that the only one remaining was his faith. Twist has stated multiple times that LBGT persons are immoral, and that is based off of his religion. Why would we set laws according to one religion? Would we set laws according to Islam? Buddhism? If they became the dominant religion? It's ridiculous to suggest that any one's faith should hold any merit whatsoever when it comes to deciding the legality of issues.

The American justice system is based on just punishment for crimes. Most states abolished the death penalty; we do not kill people as a punishment for murder. You could make the argument that the American justice system has correlation with any religion that has any semblance of set punishments for specific crimes, so making that argument for Christianity is not novel in any way. Do you honestly think that the bibles text, where it states that homosexuality is immoral is good enough reason to outlaw gay marriage?

Lastly, it's easy for you to say 'Who cares, it's just marriage', because you are not denied the privilege. It's just as much about the principle that specific people are being denied specific rights, as it is about the legal and mutual benefits that LGBT persons would gain if they were allowed to marry.

 

[FromTheSouth]

This isn't about religion,

Let's go ahead and let me decide what it's about.

this is about why LGBT should not be allowed to marry.

Right, but beyond "it isn't fair" and "religion sucks", what arguments have you really made?

Previously I deconstructed Twist's reasons so that the only one remaining was his faith.

OK, fine. But....why is faith bad? Why is so bad to assume that faith and religion do not play apart in the laws made? We are a nation under God, endowed by our creator, etc. Quite a significant percentage of our legal system can be found in the Bible. It's not like it would be unprecedented for a law to be religiously based.

Twist has stated multiple times that LBGT persons are immoral, and that is based off of his religion.

Well, that's just what his faith tells him. The Bible is pretty clear on the subject. If he chooses to follow that tenant of The Bible, it is your right to disagree, but pretty arrogant to simply dismiss as balderdash just because you disagree. Argue the point, not the faith.

Why would we set laws according to one religion?

We don't. Most religions are pretty consistent on the basics.

Would we set laws according to Islam? Buddhism? If they became the dominant religion?

Probably. I mean, most nations have laws based on religion.

It's ridiculous to suggest that any one's faith should hold any merit whatsoever when it comes to deciding the legality of issues.

Why? You never answer this. I don't care if you believe in God or not, but you're simply just being dismissive for the sake of bashing religion when, in fact, you have no real arguments other than "I'm atheist, so the rest of you are idiots."

The American justice system is based on just punishment for crimes.

Right. An eye for an eye.

Most states abolished the death penalty;

No, they didn't. This is an all out lie.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/states-and-without-death-penalty

we do not kill people as a punishment for murder.

What do you mean, "we"? 30 plus states, the military, and the federal government account for a lot more of "we" than whatever you are referring to.

You could make the argument that the American justice system has correlation with any religion that has any semblance of set punishments for specific crimes, so making that argument for Christianity is not novel in any way.

Of course not. So, to assume that one more law will not be based on religion is a weak argument. That is the bone I am picking with you. You are so dismissive of religion that you assume calling it stupid is enough of an argument when it is nothing more than petulance.

Do you honestly think that the bibles text, where it states that homosexuality is immoral is good enough reason to outlaw gay marriage?

Of course not. The fact that the argument to legalize holds little merit with me is enough to not care if they change the law or not. I already said that.

Lastly, it's easy for you to say 'Who cares, it's just marriage', because you are not denied the privilege.

So what? Denied a privilege says it all. Equal rights, not equal privileges. That's the argument right there. Not being allowed to marry provides for no gross injustice.

It's just as much about the principle that specific people are being denied specific rights,

But, a minute ago it was a privilege.

as it is about the legal and mutual benefits that LGBT persons would gain if they were allowed to marry.

The legal benefits are shit. The only legal benefit is the transfer of estate upon death, and any adult who is irresponsible to not have a will outlining where his wealth goes deserves to have it distributed by the state.

 

[SalvIsWin]

Privileges are being denied to LBGT, and there is no reason for that. There is no basis for the claim that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry; no research or evidence contributes to this view, in fact, research contributes to the opposite perspective, with studies showing that they are just as capable parents, and that homosexuality is not a choice, it is the natural progression of their sexuality.

The only reason one can give is that it is their own belief that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry, because it is immoral, and that their faith has dictated this to them. I believe that any reasonable country should require more than a text containing a point of view if it is to decide that certain privileges should not be given to specific citizens.

This is the same point of view I hold for any thing, there should be a reasonable basis for any assertion. I believe in evolution because there is evidence and research for it, I do not believe in intelligent design because there is a text that tells me that's the way it happened.

You've suggested I argue against Twist's claim that homosexuality is immoral because it is stated in the bible, how am I supposed to do that? How would you suggest I prove that homosexuality is moral? Twist believes it isn't moral because the bible says so, all I can say is that there is no evidence to suggest there is a God, or that God dictated his will in to that book.

If the majority of religious texts stated that peanut-butter & jelly sandwiches were immoral, and thus we made a law outlawing them, there isn't anything I could do to convince you to eat one. I could prove through research that they are perfectly fine to eat, I could prove that you wouldn't become sick after eating one, but I cannot prove that the bibles assertion of the immortality of PB&J sandwiches is false, and if all you need is the books assertion, that's a problem.

This entire discussion goes back to falsifiability. I cannot prove that what it is stated in the bible in false, so I cannot prove that homosexuality is in fact moral, so if you're suggesting that the bibles assertion of homo-sexualities immorality is reason enough to deny privileges, there is nothing I could do to ever change that. That is why the bibles text shouldn't hold merit when deciding law, I cannot prove that you're wrong, I can only show that there is no reason to believe that it is true, and that there is reason to believe another perspective.

About the capital punishment comment, there is nothing to say other than that I was incorrect when I said that. I was thinking that Texas is one of the only states to have the electric chair as a method of capital punishment, not that Texas was one of the only states remaining to still conduct capital punishment.

I personally argue for LGBT marriage on principle alone, I am well aware that other laws could be enacted to ensure that they have the same rights as married persons, but to be recognized as a civil union. The point I make is that the USA denies privileges for no reason other than that the bible has stated it is immoral, something that you cannot argue against. Unless I become to first person to prove the bible is wrong, there is nothing I can say to change your opinion, you will choose to believe the bible is correct even though there is no evidence to suggest that, and I will choose to believe in things that have empirical basis.