The Facts: Illegal Same sex marriage Pedophilia What you want to do: Change the law in order for same sex marriage to be legal. What is possible: Change the law in order for children marrying adults to be legal. either way you are changing the law, who are you to say how much it should be changed?
If I recall ferretness posed a very similar argument as you, and nonetheless, it's appeared hostile, rather than productive. Ferretness talked about how if gays were allowed to be able to marry, then the government shouldn't step in to stop people from committing suicide. That is a sick comparison, as your is. Pedophilia is a crime because it allows kids who mostly lack common sense, to be influenced to have sex with an adult who more likely knows better. Same-sex marriage ban is purely a religious argument, so if you are going to make comparisons, make them religious based. Otherwise your comments are seen as hateful toward homosexuals who have no intentions of raping those their age, or younger.
Who are you to say it shouldn't be changed? Laws change all the time, that is pretty much the job of every legislator since the constitution was drafted. It is their job to change and create law in the best interest of the people they represent, and to use their common sense and rationality to determine the right laws. And guess what? I'm the guy who votes for the people that decide how much it should be changed. Changing the law to let children marry adults would be changing the definition of contractual capacity. If children could legally enter contracts, any child could get a credit card, buy and own property, sue in court, and any number of other retarded things. The legal system would break down completely. In contrast, allowing gay marriage would let gay people get married, and grant them all of the legal rights associated with it. How terrifying! /sarcasm
Yes, you're totally right, using something else that is illegal as a valid reason to not legalise something totally unrelated makes perfect sense. Your basic argument was this "We shouldn't make illegal stuff legal because it's illegal." - Fantastic logic squire!
of course it is hostile. It's in opposition to you. That fulfills the definition of debating, you have to have two sides. Saying that anything in opposition isn't productive and therefore wrong is quite silly. No... His example is just weird. In mine I'm comparing to similar things because they both deal with sexual preferences, you could replace pedophila with zoophila or necrophilia and they would still be equivalent because they all have to do with the same thing. Sexual perversion. "Marriage stopped being a purely religious institution the instant the government made law specific to married couples." lol yes let me use the religious argument, you all would find stoning homosexuals so less insulting wouldn't you? Yes and the people they represent majoritarily(word?) don't want gay marriage. So why would they go against the majority of people they represent, when it is their job to express the will of the majority? w/e zoophila and necrophilia still apply. Your problem is that you say they're unrelated when they completely are. They are both issues of sexual preference at their core. Guess what, that doesn't make sense. Guess what else, its not what I'm saying. The heart of my reasoning is that gay people don't contribute to the human species genetically in anyway. However black people do as they provide for genetic diversity. Therefore Black rights =/= gay rights. And since when does voting have to do solely with sexual preference? yet another reason why your example is unrelated to mine. So you should stop misrepresenting mew and actually come up with counter points, rather than just make bullshit up. No my basic logic is that since homosexuality is similar to things like pedophilia, necrophilia, and zoophilia. Why is one right but they others aren't?
@El Diablo, Your argument compares homosexuality with zoophilia and necrophilia, when these are completely different. Homosexuality (specifically, gay couples) is a consent between both parties to be gay. Necrophilia does not take the consent of the dead person, and zoophilia does not take the consent of any animals, as most (if not all) laws don't. It doesn't matter if all these are sexual preferences, as that is about as similar as you can get to comparing these behaviors. The fact that people are discriminating against gays for wanting to be equal to straight couples is plain wrong in today's society. Why can't gays have equal rights as straight couples? Homosexuality is a genetic behavior, and to discriminate against that is like discriminating against someone for their skin. There is no difference.
Friendly debate is completely possible. Hostility implies something more than just basic opposition. You're not being overtly hostile for the most part. CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT. Besides, if you want to make all nonstandard sex acts illegal using the excuse that they are "perversion" you'll be alienating a whole lot of straight couples as well. People are kinkier than you believe behind closed doors. Huh? You haven't made a religious argument yet. Of course, I've yet to see any secular argument for why gay marriage ought to be illegal besides false analogies. Opinions change over time, thats the entire point of this debate. Right now you're probably right that the majority would vote against gay marriage, but I'm not asserting that it is. Try countering an argument that was actually made instead of inventing a straw man and countering that. CONSENT. No they don't. Homosexuality hurts nobody, in fact it brings joy to those who are gay. Pedophilia hurts children. The two are not the same. Continuing to equate homosexuality with pedophilia just proves that you're being willfully ignorant. Especially since you clearly can't refute the argument that consent makes all the difference in the world, so you just keep on stating that the two are the same. How about you do the same? Gays don't reproduce with each other. Who cares? Are you saying that everybody who never has any biological children of their own does not deserve love or equal rights under the law? I've said it many times in this post, and you've been told multiple times in this thread already. Consent. Homosexuality is not wrong, no matter how icky you find it to be.
i would like to add to this arguement,but, i am forgien so please exuse my grammer and/or spelling. I myself am not against gay marraige, but i am against gay sex... why? you my ask. i answer: some places in the human body are not meant to be filled. i believe it is our responsability to prevent ourselfs from harming one another(isnt that why attempting suicide illigal?)
If you're referring to anal sex, which I think you are, then that's hardly an argument as it is. Especially because anal sex isn't performed ONLY by homosexual couples. Heterosexual couples do it too.
Better stop all potentially harmful activities then! Junk food, impact exercise and sports, driving in the rain, anal sex; all are potentially harmful, so they're all equally wrong, right? Wouldn't want to apply a double standard and only ban buttsex now would we? Education about the potential risks, and a little bit of common sense are all we can do. Legislating isn't the answer to keeping people safe from themselves most of the time.
I'm for it. *Not UP for it.* but I support it. Also, lot of people didn't read the OP asking to turn sigs off.
The true question of same sex marriage, is not the marriage but the morality of homosexuality. If you are against same sex marriage then you are against homosexuality. You can't tell someone they are free to love whoever they want, but tell them they have limits, while you don't. Then you're being a bigot.
Is this really the crux of your argument? People are not roving cells concerned solely with preservation of the species. The kind of deliberately obtuse reasoning that could ever lead to this kind of thinking is beyond me. I don't even know how to begin arguing against it, you are literally living in a world filled with evidence to the contrary. Have you considered where your logic takes you? Does any woman who chooses a career over pregnancy deserve to be culled, has she too forsaken her position in our grand march towards evolutionary perfection? Or maybe it would be best if we used I.Q. tests to determine the most appropriate breeders? How about an obstacle course? Maybe she needs to prove she can outrun a lion before she gets her baby license. If your approach to life truly is evolutionary perfection then make that your personal hobby and grow some wings or something, don't pretend like anyone else views existence in such a binary way.
Exactly, the argument of homosexuality being contrary to human reproduction and thus it should be illegal is frankly laughable. Tbh, the examples of how ridiculous this proposition really is extend way further in to regular society than even you mentioned. What about contraception? Isn't sex involving contraception basically exactly the same as homosexual sex in the terms you are outlining? In both, there is no aim or possibility (ok, so it's not impossible for contraception to fail I know, but the act of using it is directly trying not to get pregnant, thus should be included in your idea of what is somehow detrimental to human society) of getting pregnant, the process is purely for pleasure. The only difference between heterosexual sex with contraception and homosexual sex is that some people find one disgusting. But then, kids find all sex disgusting right? So let's make that illegal..... Hell, what about single people? Are they not pulling their weight because they aren't out there knocking up women like a dedicated human being should do? I dunno if you've noticed, but the human race is actually kinda ok for population right now, we don't need to be telling people who they can and can't have sex it and how they must do it for fear of dying out. Ever heard of a little place called China? Right, they actually have the opposite problem, and by your logic could really do with a big upsurge in the amount of homosexuals there. I'm with Batty Man here, if this is really the crux of your argument then I would go away, sit and think for a good long while, then maybe you'll be in a position to actually convey something enjoying the benefits of even basic logic and meaning.
For the rational, homosexuality is okay and for the moralists it's not. This seems to be able to be solved when we answer the question of God's existence.
No it can be solved morally too. You assume a moralist is limited to only one religion. A religion that allows homosexuality and deems it to be moral would be OK with homosexuality both from a rationalist and a moralist perspective.
Or consider the postulation that any God worth believing in is one that loves all of His creations, and is not some picky, angry bastard that relatively ignorant men edited into a book a few thousand years ago to keep even more ignorant people in line.
Pick out the verse... All I'm saying is that usually people who are against homosexuality are also religious. If you can definitively say there's no God then for the most part this debate is a closed issue.