Gay Marriage Debate

[jimnyc]

This should hopefully be a good one, not only for the subject matter but for the 2 opponents! OCA and Conhog will be debating their respective stances on Gay Marriage. At the conclusion, a poll will be added so that the board can vote for who best made their argument. So I hope the opponents will use facts, links, sources and put some effort into it, and of course keep the flames out.

** Reminder - this is to remain just between these two. Nobody else should be replying in this thread. Any replies outside of these 2 will be deleted and the offender will be banned from this section of the board. **

OCA will give his opening statement and then Conhog can do the same and begin the back and forth. Neither shall make consecutive posts, this should be a back and forth debate. We will go back and forth until both have had an opportunity to make 10 replies apiece.

OCA, the floor is yours

[OCA]

Currently 29 states have voted on queer choice marriage and 29 have voted NO so the myth of trending social acceptance is well, a myth.

http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=15576

As of 4:32 Jan.31, 2012 no irrefuteable evidence of queer by birth has ever been found so queer choicers are living a lifestyle of their own choosing and with that lifestyle comes consequences one being you cannot marry someone of the same sex, currently queer choicers are not being denied any inalienable right under the Constitution that any other American is being denied.

Queer choicers and their community as a percentage of population lead society in a myriad of social ills from infectious disease to mental and physical abuse:

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=Is01B1

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm#hivaidsexposure

Queer choicers do not want to get married they just want legitimization of their perversion of choice and marriage is just the vehicle they are driving to get there:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2009/feb/09020315

Society, in order to function and thrive has set limits and boundaries and it has determined that queers getting married is not required to further its existence since queer choicers cannot reproduce and the inherent ills it brings with it.

In the end the only question that needs to be asked is" should we afford special rights to a group of people based upon their lifestyle choice? How about heroin addicts? Pedophiles?

The answer is no.

[ConHog]

Currently 29 states have voted on queer choice marriage and 29 have voted NO so the myth of trending social acceptance is well, a myth.

http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=15576

As of 4:32 Jan.31, 2012 no irrefuteable evidence of queer by birth has ever been found so queer choicers are living a lifestyle of their own choosing and with that lifestyle comes consequences one being you cannot marry someone of the same sex, currently queer choicers are not being denied any inalienable right under the Constitution that any other American is being denied.

Queer choicers and their community as a percentage of population lead society in a myriad of social ills from infectious disease to mental and physical abuse:

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=Is01B1

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm#hivaidsexposure

Queer choicers do not want to get married they just want legitimization of their perversion of choice and marriage is just the vehicle they are driving to get there:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2009/feb/09020315

Society, in order to function and thrive has set limits and boundaries and it has determined that queers getting married is not required to further its existence since queer choicers cannot reproduce and the inherent ills it brings with it.

In the end the only question that needs to be asked is" should we afford special rights to a group of people based upon their lifestyle choice? How about heroin addicts? Pedophiles?

The answer is no.

An interesting opening gambit by my esteemed opponent. Immediately dehumanize homosexuals with the queer slur so that the reader won't sympathize with them on a personal level. It won't work though.

I absolutely agree that being gay is a choice, that however is irrelevant to THIS discussion. I wasn't born to love a Mexican either, but I certainly thank God that no law prevented me from marrying one.

As for states votes, they are likewise irrelevant if the underlying issue is unconstitutional, which I believe this one is. I see nowhere where the government at ANY level has the authority say who can marry who. And in fact the Supreme Court has already ageed with me on that issue in Loving vs Virginia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

I think we can all agree that the many don't simply get to tell the few they can't do something just because we think it's icky. So the issue of social acceptability is also moot to this discussion.

On to the next issue, the claim is made that gays don't want to get married, they just want to force their lifestyle down the throats of others. In some cases that is no doubt true, but in many cases they just want to be left alone to live their lives. THAT being said, is forcing YOUR heterosexual lifestyle down their throats by telling them they can't marry the same sex any better than what you think they are trying to do?

Society in the US certainly has determine that there must be certain limits in order that society itself may survive and even thrive. Those limits are you can't do something that interferes with another person's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Homosexuals wanting to marry are not doing any of those things, but those who would keep them from marrying the person of their choice are certainly inhibiting THEIR ability to do so.

No my friends, the answer isn't "tel the queers to shut up and just live together , no marriage" The answer of course is to toss the government out of the marriage business and leave it up to churches or even private marriage businesses to wed whomever they like or not marry anyone they don't want to marry.

As for the two links claiming that homosexuality is a dangerous lifestyle, I summarily dismiss that as nothing more than emotional fauxrage. Who cares? We have a right to put ourselves at risk if we like. Even if it's doing something icky like being homosexual. Skydiving is dangerous. But it's fun, I hope they don't outlaw it. I'm sure everyone who reads this has at SOME point chosen to engage in a dangerous activity, and as long as that activity doesn't infringe on the rights of someone who has NOT chose to be part of it, well then I hope each of you had fun doing your chosen activity.

[OCA]

An interesting opening gambit by my esteemed opponent. Immediately dehumanize homosexuals with the queer slur so that the reader won't sympathize with them on a personal level. It won't work though.

I absolutely agree that being gay is a choice, that however is irrelevant to THIS discussion. I wasn't born to love a Mexican either, but I certainly thank God that no law prevented me from marrying one.

As for states votes, they are likewise irrelevant if the underlying issue is unconstitutional, which I believe this one is. I see nowhere where the government at ANY level has the authority say who can marry who. And in fact the Supreme Court has already ageed with me on that issue in Loving vs Virginia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

I think we can all agree that the many don't simply get to tell the few they can't do something just because we think it's icky. So the issue of social acceptability is also moot to this discussion.

On to the next issue, the claim is made that gays don't want to get married, they just want to force their lifestyle down the throats of others. In some cases that is no doubt true, but in many cases they just want to be left alone to live their lives. THAT being said, is forcing YOUR heterosexual lifestyle down their throats by telling them they can't marry the same sex any better than what you think they are trying to do?

Society in the US certainly has determine that there must be certain limits in order that society itself may survive and even thrive. Those limits are you can't do something that interferes with another person's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Homosexuals wanting to marry are not doing any of those things, but those who would keep them from marrying the person of their choice are certainly inhibiting THEIR ability to do so.

No my friends, the answer isn't "tel the queers to shut up and just live together , no marriage" The answer of course is to toss the government out of the marriage business and leave it up to churches or even private marriage businesses to wed whomever they like or not marry anyone they don't want to marry.

As for the two links claiming that homosexuality is a dangerous lifestyle, I summarily dismiss that as nothing more than emotional fauxrage. Who cares? We have a right to put ourselves at risk if we like. Even if it's doing something icky like being homosexual. Skydiving is dangerous. But it's fun, I hope they don't outlaw it. I'm sure everyone who reads this has at SOME point chosen to engage in a dangerous activity, and as long as that activity doesn't infringe on the rights of someone who has NOT chose to be part of it, well then I hope each of you had fun doing your chosen activity.

All points made by me and by the links as to the ills of the queer choice lifestyle are completely pertinent to the discussion, if they are "emotional fauxrage" i'm sure you can refute each one individually.

Comparing skydiving to AIDS is silly at best.

The Federal government has got it right and left it up to the individual states to decide and unless a legislature overrides the will of the people(tyrrany of a minority over the majority), the people are unanimous in their voice, so yes the many do get to tell the few what is acceptable and what is not especialy when its a lifestyle CHOICE.


Nowhere are queer choicers being denied "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" according to LAW. Some people take happiness in thievery, maybe we are violating their constitutional rights too!

No marriage should not be left up to churches and "private marriage businesses", the government has a responsibility in this arena to ensure through laws the continued existence of a safe and harmonious society, something queer choicers have shown a continuing disregard for.

Apparently Mr/Mrs. Hog is a moral relativist, that type of thinking has gotten us to where we are in America, a social dump.

[ConHog]

All points made by me and by the links as to the ills of the queer choice lifestyle are completely pertinent to the discussion, if they are "emotional fauxrage" i'm sure you can refute each one individually.

Comparing skydiving to AIDS is silly at best.

The Federal government has got it right and left it up to the individual states to decide and unless a legislature overrides the will of the people(tyrrany of a minority over the majority), the people are unanimous in their voice, so yes the many do get to tell the few what is acceptable and what is not especialy when its a lifestyle CHOICE.


Nowhere are queer choicers being denied "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" according to LAW. Some people take happiness in thievery, maybe we are violating their constitutional rights too!

No marriage should not be left up to churches and "private marriage businesses", the government has a responsibility in this arena to ensure through laws the continued existence of a safe and harmonious society, something queer choicers have shown a continuing disregard for.

Apparently Mr/Mrs. Hog is a moral relativist, that type of thinking has gotten us to where we are in America, a social dump.

I did in fact refute each of your emotional objections to gay marriage.

As for comparing sky diving to AIDS. I did not. I compared gay marriage to skydiving in terms of risk. A more reasonable statement would have been to say I compared crushing yourself into the ground with AIDS since both are possibilities one faces when engaging in the associated risky behavior, and that is quite pertinent because if you agree we have the right to risk ourselves by skydiving, you MUST agree that we have the right to risk ourselves with gay sex.

Prior to Loving the will of the people in many parts of the country was not to allow inter racial marriages. Thankfully the government did what it is SUPPOSED to do it and it told the majority that they could in fact NOT just do whatever they wanted just because they thought something was icky.

Some people DO take happiness from thievery, the difference of course is as I noted, no one has a right to happiness at the expense of others. Thievery obviously costs someone something, someone being gay costs no one anything.



How about you show some evidence that the government keeping gays from marrying in fact benefits society at all, your word isn't good enough.

You claim America is a social dump, but in fact gay marriage currently isn't the law of the land in most areas, so can you show that gay marriage is what has made the US a social dump?

[OCA]

I did in fact refute each of your emotional objections to gay marriage.

As for comparing sky diving to AIDS. I did not. I compared gay marriage to skydiving in terms of risk. A more reasonable statement would have been to say I compared crushing yourself into the ground with AIDS since both are possibilities one faces when engaging in the associated risky behavior, and that is quite pertinent because if you agree we have the right to risk ourselves by skydiving, you MUST agree that we have the right to risk ourselves with gay sex.

Prior to Loving the will of the people in many parts of the country was not to allow inter racial marriages. Thankfully the government did what it is SUPPOSED to do it and it told the majority that they could in fact NOT just do whatever they wanted just because they thought something was icky.

Some people DO take happiness from thievery, the difference of course is as I noted, no one has a right to happiness at the expense of others. Thievery obviously costs someone something, someone being gay costs no one anything.



How about you show some evidence that the government keeping gays from marrying in fact benefits society at all, your word isn't good enough.

You claim America is a social dump, but in fact gay marriage currently isn't the law of the land in most areas, so can you show that gay marriage is what has made the US a social dump?

Again, you have not refuted any of my points let alone adress any of my links, all are valid reasons as to why queer choicers should not be rewarded with special rights.

Queer choice sex should be a risk one should take but the government should take the line of publicly advising against it as they advise against drug abuse. And yes, i'm for mental health treatment for those who want help finding out why they made such a wreckless lifestyle choice.

Comparing Blacks to queer choicers? You've already seen thats a no goer. 1 has a choice 1 doesn't. The 1 who doesn't(Blacks) has discrimination put on them for something they can't change, queers choose their lot in life.

Lets ask the victims of the infestation of the bllod supply back in the 80's if being queer didn't come at the expense of others http://www.americantraditions.org/Articles/The%20Depraved%20Excesses%20of%20Homosexual%20Life styles.htm

Here you go:


http://www.tfpstudentaction.org/politically-incorrect/homosexuality/10-reasons-why-homosexual-marriage-is-harmful-and-must-be-opposed.html

[ConHog]

Again, you have not refuted any of my points let alone adress any of my links, all are valid reasons as to why queer choicers should not be rewarded with special rights.

Queer choice sex should be a risk one should take but the government should take the line of publicly advising against it as they advise against drug abuse. And yes, i'm for mental health treatment for those who want help finding out why they made such a wreckless lifestyle choice.

Comparing Blacks to queer choicers? You've already seen thats a no goer. 1 has a choice 1 doesn't. The 1 who doesn't(Blacks) has discrimination put on them for something they can't change, queers choose their lot in life.

Lets ask the victims of the infestation of the bllod supply back in the 80's if being queer didn't come at the expense of others http://www.americantraditions.org/Articles/The%20Depraved%20Excesses%20of%20Homosexual%20Life styles.htm

Here you go:


http://www.tfpstudentaction.org/politically-incorrect/homosexuality/10-reasons-why-homosexual-marriage-is-harmful-and-must-be-opposed.html

I copied some from my post that got moved to the other thread because I think it's relevant and I want to it a few things about some of your objections to gay marriage.

First, well address the health risk.

It is nice that you agree that we have the right to do whatever we like as long as we aren't hurting anyone else. So that makes your link from the CDC irrelevant to this discussion no matter how factual the information. Now IF you had a link from the CDC that said that gay marriage leads to people outside the marriage contracting STDs , THEN you might have a point, but it doesn't, so you don't.

As for YOUR link about the tainted blood, that is tragic, but that is a health issue, not a gay marriage issue. Not every gay is some AIDS infested idiot who donates tainted blood to the blood bank. Further, you can't even say that for sure the tainted blood was donated by gays.

Now the idea of comparing gay to black.

NO ONE was comparing being black to being gay. I was however comparing being able to marry the person of your choice ( as long as that person is a consenting adult) to being able to marry the person of your choice (again, as long as that person is a consenting adult.) You simply are not using logic when you declare that gays can't marry. You do realize that in our democracy the tables could turn in one election cycle and it could be YOU who finds yourself as a minority being told you can't do something that hurts no one b/c the majority think it's icky don't you? And so, the VERY people who we should safeguard most are the ones we agree with least.

Now on to your believe that it should be up to the states, you haven't even read Loving if you think it left the question of interracial marriages up to the states. In fact the defendant in the case was the state of Virginia and they were fighting to be able to keep inter racial marriages illegal. They lost and with that came precedence , no state is allowed to make a law barring inter racial marriages.

The TRUTH is there is only valid reason for opposing gay marriage. Religious views, and that's cool, we of course have the religious right to think it's a sin and gross. But because of a small section in the COTUS.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Now, I'm ASSUMING you knew where that statement is, and once again, you don't want someone telling you that you have to follow their religious beliefs you have NO right to tell others that they have to follow YOUR beliefs.

In case you don't know where the above can be found.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_A...s_Constitution

Now, another reason I see people give for opposing gay marriage is for the children, "oh it hurts the children" really? So you're telling me that the children are better off with two single gay adults living together unmarried then they would be if those adults were married? Yeah that makes a LOT of sense.

The bottom line OCA is you have no actual legitimate reasons for telling a private organization that marrying people of the same gender is illegal. Not one that amounts to more than "it's icky" and even using THAT excuse ignores the fact that gay people are being "icky" whether you let them marry or not.

[OCA]

I copied some from my post that got moved to the other thread because I think it's relevant and I want to it a few things about some of your objections to gay marriage.

First, well address the health risk.

It is nice that you agree that we have the right to do whatever we like as long as we aren't hurting anyone else. So that makes your link from the CDC irrelevant to this discussion no matter how factual the information. Now IF you had a link from the CDC that said that gay marriage leads to people outside the marriage contracting STDs , THEN you might have a point, but it doesn't, so you don't.

As for YOUR link about the tainted blood, that is tragic, but that is a health issue, not a gay marriage issue. Not every gay is some AIDS infested idiot who donates tainted blood to the blood bank. Further, you can't even say that for sure the tainted blood was donated by gays.

Now the idea of comparing gay to black.

NO ONE was comparing being black to being gay. I was however comparing being able to marry the person of your choice ( as long as that person is a consenting adult) to being able to marry the person of your choice (again, as long as that person is a consenting adult.) You simply are not using logic when you declare that gays can't marry. You do realize that in our democracy the tables could turn in one election cycle and it could be YOU who finds yourself as a minority being told you can't do something that hurts no one b/c the majority think it's icky don't you? And so, the VERY people who we should safeguard most are the ones we agree with least.

Now on to your believe that it should be up to the states, you haven't even read Loving if you think it left the question of interracial marriages up to the states. In fact the defendant in the case was the state of Virginia and they were fighting to be able to keep inter racial marriages illegal. They lost and with that came precedence , no state is allowed to make a law barring inter racial marriages.

The TRUTH is there is only valid reason for opposing gay marriage. Religious views, and that's cool, we of course have the religious right to think it's a sin and gross. But because of a small section in the COTUS.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Now, I'm ASSUMING you knew where that statement is, and once again, you don't want someone telling you that you have to follow their religious beliefs you have NO right to tell others that they have to follow YOUR beliefs.

In case you don't know where the above can be found.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_A...s_Constitution

Now, another reason I see people give for opposing gay marriage is for the children, "oh it hurts the children" really? So you're telling me that the children are better off with two single gay adults living together unmarried then they would be if those adults were married? Yeah that makes a LOT of sense.

The bottom line OCA is you have no actual legitimate reasons for telling a private organization that marrying people of the same gender is illegal. Not one that amounts to more than "it's icky" and even using THAT excuse ignores the fact that gay people are being "icky" whether you let them marry or not.

OMG.............Do you know the difference between right and wrong?

There is nothing in the constitution that preserves the right for queers or anybody else to marry, its left up to individual states, thats why you don't get a fed marriage license...........and the states citizens have spoken.

Queer diseases and behaviors have everything to do with it, why on earth would we want to create special rights for such a small segment(1-2% of population) that creates such problems?


Anyway, its a moot point, the peole have spoken, we will not have tyrrany of the minority over the majority that is unless you like judges creating law from the bench, do you?

I've sufficiently demonstrated the detrimental side effects of allowing queer choicers the special right of marriage, the states need to and are stepping in to ban it.

Oh and yeah, a child is better off without parents than with queer parents.

Your interracial case is irrelevant to this topic..............next?

[ConHog]

OMG.............Do you know the difference between right and wrong?

There is nothing in the constitution that preserves the right for queers or anybody else to marry, its left up to individual states, thats why you don't get a fed marriage license...........and the states citizens have spoken.

Queer diseases and behaviors have everything to do with it, why on earth would we want to create special rights for such a small segment(1-2% of population) that creates such problems?


Anyway, its a moot point, the peole have spoken, we will not have tyrrany of the minority over the majority that is unless you like judges creating law from the bench, do you?

I've sufficiently demonstrated the detrimental side effects of allowing queer choicers the special right of marriage, the states need to and are stepping in to ban it.

Oh and yeah, a child is better off without parents than with queer parents.

Your interracial case is irrelevant to this topic..............next?
I'm glad you bring up right and wrong. Once again, that is a religious value, the first amendment CLEARLY states that the government can not mandate a religion. Not all religions view being gay as being wrong. So once again, you are wanting to dictate YOUR religious views on other people.

And even that is irrelevant. All of your arguments have been suited to making being gay illegal. Being gay is NOT illegal. So unless you believe that gays won't be engaging in gay sex unless married all of your points about gay sex being bad for society are nullified in this thread. Allowing gay marriage simply is not going to lead to more gay sex. In fact as most guys can attest being married leads to less sex, or at least it seems that way. :laugh2:

On the argument that children are better off with no parents than with gay parents. What a stupid claim. You have just dismissed everyone who chooses to be gay as a person who can't be a good role model to children and that's just silly. Here's a nice little study that shows that isn't true in the least. Now this particular study relates to gay women parents, but gay is gay.

http://www.livescience.com/6073-children-raised-lesbians-fine-studies-show.html

Gee there is a shock, the study indicates that the parents sexuality really didn't affect their grades nor their behavior.

Here is another article written by a noted psychologist pointing out that gay doesn't affect parenting skills.

http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2009/11/09/children-of-gay-parents/

And even if you do try to make that argument, why do you single out gay, short of actual abuse we let shitty parents raise their own children all the time. I could list spend all day posting links to shitty straight parents, yet I don't see you or anyone else clamoring to not allow them to marry.

Oh, and of course this ignores the fact that just as there are straight married couples who have no desire to have children, there are gay couples who have no desire to have children, and so there isn't even a question about what kind of parents they would be, even if the state had the right to ask the question.

EVEN IF THE STATE HAD THE RIGHT TO ASK THE QUESTION.

Which leads me to my final point.

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Ninth Amendment of course.

And if we correlate the ninth with Loving where marriage was stated to be

one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Now clearly some would like to pretend that that ruling ONLY applies to race, but that is just not so. All men and women are born with an inherent right to marriage. Now that isn't the same thing as saying they have a right to a government provided marriage license, but as long as the rule of law requires one to be considered the government is compelled, nay they MUST allow anyone to marry any other adult they wish.


Now , some of have suggested that I need to be debating every point that OCA makes and providing evidence that hat he says isn't true. But I can't do that in many cases because I simply don't deny that some of the things he says are true.

For instance, his point about homosexual sex being more likely to lead to sexually transmitted diseases, that is true. But pointing that out in this thread misses a couple points. The first point being that we obviously have the right to take part in high risk activities. Whether those activities seem icky to others or not. BUT the more important point to THIS thread is this.

Stating that gay sex leads to more STDs is irrelevant to the question of whether gay marriage should be legal, UNLESS you can show that legalizing gay marriage will lead to more gay sex. Obviously no one can prove that.

So as the reader can plainly see, I don't have to prove that what OCA says is untrue in order to defend legalizing gay marriage.

[OCA]

I'm glad you bring up right and wrong. Once again, that is a religious value, the first amendment CLEARLY states that the government can not mandate a religion. Not all religions view being gay as being wrong. So once again, you are wanting to dictate YOUR religious views on other people.

And even that is irrelevant. All of your arguments have been suited to making being gay illegal. Being gay is NOT illegal. So unless you believe that gays won't be engaging in gay sex unless married all of your points about gay sex being bad for society are nullified in this thread. Allowing gay marriage simply is not going to lead to more gay sex. In fact as most guys can attest being married leads to less sex, or at least it seems that way. :laugh2:

On the argument that children are better off with no parents than with gay parents. What a stupid claim. You have just dismissed everyone who chooses to be gay as a person who can't be a good role model to children and that's just silly. Here's a nice little study that shows that isn't true in the least. Now this particular study relates to gay women parents, but gay is gay.

http://www.livescience.com/6073-children-raised-lesbians-fine-studies-show.html

Gee there is a shock, the study indicates that the parents sexuality really didn't affect their grades nor their behavior.

Here is another article written by a noted psychologist pointing out that gay doesn't affect parenting skills.

http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2009/11/09/children-of-gay-parents/

And even if you do try to make that argument, why do you single out gay, short of actual abuse we let shitty parents raise their own children all the time. I could list spend all day posting links to shitty straight parents, yet I don't see you or anyone else clamoring to not allow them to marry.

Oh, and of course this ignores the fact that just as there are straight married couples who have no desire to have children, there are gay couples who have no desire to have children, and so there isn't even a question about what kind of parents they would be, even if the state had the right to ask the question.

EVEN IF THE STATE HAD THE RIGHT TO ASK THE QUESTION.

Which leads me to my final point.

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Ninth Amendment of course.

And if we correlate the ninth with Loving where marriage was stated to be

one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Now clearly some would like to pretend that that ruling ONLY applies to race, but that is just not so. All men and women are born with an inherent right to marriage. Now that isn't the same thing as saying they have a right to a government provided marriage license, but as long as the rule of law requires one to be considered the government is compelled, nay they MUST allow anyone to marry any other adult they wish.


Now , some of have suggested that I need to be debating every point that OCA makes and providing evidence that hat he says isn't true. But I can't do that in many cases because I simply don't deny that some of the things he says are true.

For instance, his point about homosexual sex being more likely to lead to sexually transmitted diseases, that is true. But pointing that out in this thread misses a couple points. The first point being that we obviously have the right to take part in high risk activities. Whether those activities seem icky to others or not. BUT the more important point to THIS thread is this.

Stating that gay sex leads to more STDs is irrelevant to the question of whether gay marriage should be legal, UNLESS you can show that legalizing gay marriage will lead to more gay sex. Obviously no one can prove that.

So as the reader can plainly see, I don't have to prove that what OCA says is untrue in order to defend legalizing gay marriage.

Oh lord, lets just start at the top:

Can you point out which religion(Christian please since we live in a 90+% Christian country) says choosing to take part in homosexuality is ok? The Government subliminally mandates religion or lets religion guide its opinions all the time, our base core of laws are based on the Ten Commandments, when Congress is in session and they start their day it isn't a Wiccan god they pray to its to the Christian god.

I have not stated that choosing to be a queer should be illegal, nice try at word twisting, I have stated that my official position is that individuals ought to be allowed to do whatever they want INSIDE THEIR OWN DOMICILE but that the government has a right to advise and legislate against extending special rights to groups of people based upon lifestyle choices they make.

And thats what it really boils down to, as much as you want your little interracial marriage case to somehow magically include two buggering dudes or two bull dykes getting hitched it simply doesn't because the S.C., the Feds, The States and The People recognize that homosexuality is a choice just like snorting cocaine and personal life choices that are proven dangerous don't need special laws and rights being created just so the individuals can feel better about themselves, and thats what its all about, they know they've fucked up but damn that stubborn pride "we'll get this thing legitimized before we are on our death bed dying from AIDS!"

Until you can prove that they are born the way they are you have zero points..........well other than"waaaaaah just let them do what they want waaaaaah".

Also the crap about we don't need to prohibit stuff that doesn't hurt other people is hogwash too, we make laws all the time that aren't "victim" laws..........patent laws, tax laws, hell speeding is victimless etc. etc. etc.

Oh and 1 other nugget I found last night:http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?33497-Holder-Loses-It-With-THE-DAILY-CALLER&highlight=nigger

Go down to post#11

Of course that is not the only time you try to "DEHUMANIZE" blacks............talk about hypocritical.

And don't give me any bullshit about "blacks call theirselves nigger all the time"..........not educated ones and I know a boatload of Blacks who would put Albert Einstein to shame and they never, I repeat never call each other nigger.

But queers do, heard of "Queer Eye For The Straight Guy"? How about the chant "we're here we're queer"?

Ok, i'll put away the nukes for now, i've effectively turned you into a sheet of glass.

[ConHog]

Oh lord, lets just start at the top:

Can you point out which religion(Christian please since we live in a 90+% Christian country) says choosing to take part in homosexuality is ok? The Government subliminally mandates religion or lets religion guide its opinions all the time, our base core of laws are based on the Ten Commandments, when Congress is in session and they start their day it isn't a Wiccan god they pray to its to the Christian god.


You are correct, Christianity does NOT say homosexuality is ok, and in fact as you point out 90% of our population at least claim to be Christians, SO it is on THAT basis that they/we say homosexuality is wrong. Face it, if we weren't Christians , we wouldn't care at all about homosexuality. So ipso facto the reason you want it outlawed (marriage wise anyway) is due to your religious beliefs, that amounts to nothing more than a theocracy , no thanks; because what happens when a a religion we don't like gets in power?



I have not stated that choosing to be a queer should be illegal, nice try at word twisting,


I in fact never claimed that you wanted homosexuality outlawed, or that you have suggested it should be. What I DID say is that outlawing gay marriages wasn't going to affect the amount of gay sex ( and gay sex is what you object to) and that the only way to do that would be to outlaw gay sex.



I have stated that my official position is that individuals ought to be allowed to do whatever they want INSIDE THEIR OWN DOMICILE but that the government has a right to advise and legislate against extending special rights to groups of people based upon lifestyle choices they make.



Can you show me where in the COTUS the government has the right to advise and legislate against gay marriage? As far as it should be a state matter, no it shouldn't. We have a right to live in whatever state we want, and no one should have their choices limited because of fear that their marriage won't be recognized in certain states.


And thats what it really boils down to, as much as you want your little interracial marriage case to somehow magically include two buggering dudes or two bull dykes getting hitched it simply doesn't because the S.C., the Feds, The States and The People recognize that homosexuality is a choice just like snorting cocaine and personal life choices that are proven dangerous don't need special laws and rights being created just so the individuals can feel better about themselves, and thats what its all about, they know they've fucked up but damn that stubborn pride "we'll get this thing legitimized before we are on our death bed dying from AIDS!"

Sir, Loving DOES apply as it states that the government has NO right to limit a person's choice of marriage. PERIOD. Doesn't matter if it's a blue guy wanting to marry a purple guy they have that inherent right.

And your continued griping about special rights is ridiculous. There is no special right, a straight person ALSO has the right to marry a person of the same sex if they so wished. No special rights at all.



Until you can prove that they are born the way they are you have zero points..........well other than"waaaaaah just let them do what they want waaaaaah".

No sir, unless you can PROVE they choose to be gay YOUR entire argument falls apart. MY argument doesn't hinge on choice or being born gay. I believe that in EITHER case they have a right to marry whomever they choose as long as that person is of legal ability to marry.


Also the crap about we don't need to prohibit stuff that doesn't hurt other people is hogwash too, we make laws all the time that aren't "victim" laws..........patent laws, tax laws, hell speeding is victimless etc. etc. etc.


Patent laws don't protect someone from harm? I beg to differ. Same with tax law and speeding laws. Of course I think you know that.





Oh and 1 other nugget I found last night:http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?33497-Holder-Loses-It-With-THE-DAILY-CALLER&highlight=nigger

Go down to post#11

Of course that is not the only time you try to "DEHUMANIZE" blacks............talk about hypocritical.

And don't give me any bullshit about "blacks call theirselves nigger all the time"..........not educated ones and I know a boatload of Blacks who would put Albert Einstein to shame and they never, I repeat never call each other nigger.

But queers do, heard of "Queer Eye For The Straight Guy"? How about the chant "we're here we're queer"?



Not relevant to this discussion


Ok, i'll put away the popgun for now, i've effectively handed you this debate.


I fixed the last line for you. :laugh:

[OCA]

I love the fact that Connie just dismisses everything when he gets busted on stuff, its hilarious and looks like Shattered is 100% correct in her assessment of Connie.

Nope, Loving is strictly about interracial marriage and SCOTUS has left it up to the states to decide on queer marriage and the states are leaving it up to the people and the people are overwhelmingly against it. Now when things come to a vote we are a majority wins society...........will you publicly come out tonight and state that you want the will of the people overturned and for judges to legislate on this issue from the bench? I'm guesing you are for the wil of the people on Obamacare?

Bullshit, the "nigger" comment is completely pertinent to this discussion, you started off your bogus first post in this discussion by accusing me of "dehumanizing" queers by calling them queer, I busted you as being a hypocrite............guess you don't like whats reflecting in the mirror?


I can prove they choose to be queer.....its called biology 101, ever pass it? Millions of dollars and decades have been poured into research trying to find this gene and as of the writing of this ubereloquent post by me nothing has been found, not even close so by default and commonly know truth of biology anf human sexuality we are ALL born with an innate attraction to the opposite sex.

Can you show me where in the COTUS the government doesn't have the right to legislate against queer marriage? The government, federal and state, reserve the right to create laws for the common good of the citizens and thank God they created this law(although in a few states the will of the people has been overturned by liberal judges, I guess you like liberal judges).

I'm tiring of your lame dismissal of all the super valid points i've made with your OPINION, you do understand the difference between opinion and fact, right Connie?

Get with it.

[ConHog]

I love the fact that Connie just dismisses everything when he gets busted on stuff, its hilarious and looks like Shattered is 100% correct in her assessment of Connie.

Dismissed as nothing more than thinly disguised flaming.



Nope, Loving is strictly about interracial marriage and SCOTUS has left it up to the states to decide on queer marriage
please cite the case




and the states are leaving it up to the people and the people are overwhelmingly against it. Now when things come to a vote we are a majority wins society...........will you publicly come out tonight and state that you want the will of the people overturned and for judges to legislate on this issue from the bench? I'm guesing you are for the wil of the people on Obamacare?

I am COMPLETELY for the courts overturning the will of the people when that will is anathema to the Constitution of the United States



Bullshit, the "nigger" comment is completely pertinent to this discussion, you started off your bogus first post in this discussion by accusing me of "dehumanizing" queers by calling them queer, I busted you as being a hypocrite............guess you don't like whats reflecting in the mirror?


I fully admit that when I DO call someone a nigger it is to dehumanize them. That is why I don't call all blacks niggers, same as I call some whites white trash to dehumanize them. But not all whites are white trash.

In contrast you throw your blanket slur over all homosexuals. Hence, no hypocrisy on my part.



I can prove they choose to be queer.....its called biology 101, ever pass it? Millions of dollars and decades have been poured into research trying to find this gene and as of the writing of this ubereloquent post by me nothing has been found, not even close so by default and commonly know truth of biology anf human sexuality we are ALL born with an innate attraction to the opposite sex.


Again, I am loathe to debate this with you because I really don't care if it's a choice or not. The bottom line is we have a right to choose lifestyles with the limits of the law. Even if you think it's icky.

That being said... The question of it being natural is not even close to answered. Here is one pretty in depth study that at best, for your argument , says it is at least debatable whether gays are born gay.

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/genetics_of_homosexuality.html

Oh look, here's another article written by a guy who wears a white coat for a living saying gays COULD be born gay, with evidence to support that.

http://www.redding.com/news/2008/jun/17/are-we-born-gay-science-suggests-yes/



Can you show me where in the COTUS the government doesn't have the right to legislate against queer marriage?

are you being serious ( and a note to some my wife scolded my ass in relation to a thread about this very thing the other day.)

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Of course that means that if it isn't EXPLICITLY listed as a right of the government in the COTUS then that it in fact reverted to the people ; but once again the PEOPLE can not simply over run the rights of other people in order to impose their own will. And thank God for that.



The government, federal and state, reserve the right to create laws for the common good of the citizens and thank God they created this law(although in a few states the will of the people has been overturned by liberal judges, I guess you like liberal judges).


The government can't reserve rights, they have only the rights enumerated in the COTUS.
But they of course can pass laws for the common good. That leaves you with the unenviable task of proving that society would benefit from not letting gays marry.



I'm tiring of your lame dismissal of all the super valid points i've made with your OPINION, you do understand the difference between opinion and fact, right Connie?

Get with it.

You have posted no valid facts that support not allowing gays to marry. You have presented some facts that support the idea that gay sex is riskier than straight sex. I have not disputed or dismissed those facts . I have only dismissed their relevance to THIS thread because they have none unless you believe that risky gay sex will stop happening if they aren't allowed to marry.

[OCA]

Until you can prove that they are born that way and homosexuality is normal and natural then they are not a minority and therefore not entitled to special rights.

Prove that, and not your little conjecture and vague link and you might, might have a point, might.

But of course you won't.

In America we don't afford groups special protections under the law based upon lifestyle choices, i've sufficiently explained why.

The SCOTUS......has refused to hear cases on this subject and has left it up to the states to decide.

Oh, please show me where in the COTUS marriage is addressed specifically.

Anyway, off to the task of proving queers are born that way and hey of you find it you might want to call leading scientists and let them know.

[ConHog]

Until you can prove that they are born that way and homosexuality is normal and natural then they are not a minority and therefore not entitled to special rights.

Prove that, and not your little conjecture and vague link and you might, might have a point, might.

But of course you won't.

In America we don't afford groups special protections under the law based upon lifestyle choices, i've sufficiently explained why.

No one is advocating special rights. Legalize same sex marriage wouldn't just be for gays, hey you could marry a dude to if you want.



The SCOTUS......has refused to hear cases on this subject and has left it up to the states to decide.


The SCOTUS refusing to hear cases of course doesn't mean any such thing. IF they meant for states to be able to have their own laws about marriage, they would have in fact stated such, not have simply declined to hear a case. And in fact cases can be refused for any number of reasons.


Oh, please show me where in the COTUS marriage is addressed specifically.

BINGO it doesn't , and that leads us right back to get government OUT of marriage.


Anyway, off to the task of proving queers are born that way and hey of you find it you might want to call leading scientists and let them know.

So you just ignore scientists who don't provide facts that support your preconceived notion? That's too bad , and completely the opposite of the scientific process, you know let the data lead you to a conclusion, not the other way around. Hell, I AGREE with your opinion that it's a choice, but looking at the evidence I am FORCED to admit that I can't be positive about that.

This entire debate you have been arguing that gay sex is dangerous and not good for society and not natural. ALL OF THOSE may be true, but outlawing gay marriage will not do anything to change how many gays are having sex, unless of course you believe gays don't engage in extramarital sex?

So HOW do your facts about gay sex relate to gay marriage at all? Answer, they do not.

Your case against gay marriage is completely emotional and religious. Fortunately we do not allow the government to pass laws based on either.

Neither do we require people to prove that they are behaving either naturally or in an approved manner before we afford them the same rights as everyone else. Instead we require that government present a valid reason for NOT affording them the same rights. "it's icky" isn't a valid reason.

And I will ask the readers one last question.

Do you want the government in YOUR bedroom?

[jimnyc]

This debate is taking a little longer than anticipated, and both participants have agreed to make their next posts their last, and to serve as their "closing arguments".

[OCA]

Folks in America we have a problem, we seem to be afraid to make judgements based upon moral absolutes and clear right and wrongs. There is no doubt that homosexuality in and of itself is wrong, clearly man was not made to lie with man and woman was not made to lie with woman, the square peg does not go into the round hole.

With that said though we don't have the right in America to tell people what kind of sex they can have short of pedophilia(something queers engage in at greater frequency within their chosen community) and beastiality. You and your buddy wanna bugger each other in the ass IN YOUR OWN DOMICILE? Have at it but just know that society has judged that to be wrong and perverse and is not going to grant you exemptions to break laws based upon your lifestyle choice same as its not going to grant exemptions to junkies because they CHOOSE to get high, its as simple as that. Wrong is wrong, right is right.


Some people will say that they are born that way, they can't help it, try to find a definitive link to the actual gene having been discovered on the web and you will get nothing, despite millions being spent and decades of research into finding the phantom "queer" gene.

Some people will say "well its evident in the animal world", true, amongst gorillas, and its been proven that only the king gorilla of the pack does the buggering of the lesser males as a way of dominance, IOW saying "I can bugger you anytime I want, you are my bitch" kind of like prisoners do, is that something we as a society want to encourage?

Not all crimes and things that are wrong have victims, sometimes they are simply moral rights and wrongs, homosexuality being a glaring example.

I've provided ample links to show the health risks involved with the queer choice lifestyle and that it has indeed impacted those outside of the lifestyle.

Homosexuality does not benefit society, they cannot procreate, they cannot be parents without perverting the true meaning of "parents", do you see how twisted this has all become in America?

My opponent will site a case, Loving vs Virginia, which was about nothing more than interracial marriage, it had absolutely nothing to do with queer marriage. The Feds have left it up to the states, most states are leaving it up to the people to decide and the people are unanimous in their voice, no queer marriage. My opponent will say that its ok for judges to overturn the will of the people based upon a twisting of the constitution, again.........moral absolutes..........we must have them.


In closing I will say my opponent has proven nothing other than the same old....."live and let live", they are not bothering me, not true, queers have a vested interest in legitimizing their perversion of choice and are stopping at nothing to see that it does get legitimized, marriage is just the main vehicle they are using to achieve that means, once legitimized they will try and teach that its "ok", that its the same as a "normal" lifestyle, no its not, i've proven that.

We must stand up in America, say no and not worry whose feelings it hurts.

[ConHog]

This thread has been a bait and switch on OCA's part. He promised to debate about gay marriage, but instead has been debating about gay sex.

I admit, that if the thread HAD been about gay sex he would have been making a pretty good case for stating that it is riskier than straight sex. And that is far ickier. Of course I agree with him on both counts, so IF that had been the topic of the thread, I wouldn't be debating him.

Let's talk about marriage though. Are we as a country REALLY willing to tell someone they can't get married based on the fact that the sex they have is dangerous? Fine let's go down that road. Let me ask a rhetorical question. How many of you guys have fucked a girl in the ass? How many of you women have had a guy fuck you in the ass? Do we disqualify each of you from marrying?

OCA would have you believe that Loving is not relevant to this discussion. But the truth is it is VERY relevant. Loving discusses the inherent right to marry that we ALL have, it doesn't limit that right to marrying someone of whichever race we like, it instead simply says that race can't be used to limit our choice of marriage partners. Common sense extrapolation suggests that neither can gender.

OCA is trying very hard to skirt a line here " I believe we can have sex with whomever we want, but not marry who we want." Does that even make sense? If we're going to admit that gays have the right to have sex, then how in the world could we then say they don't have the right to marry?

Another argument he makes is that it's not good for kids, but can't we all agree that having two married gays in the house is better than having two unmarried gays in the house? Is anyone here naive enough to believe that gays aren't doing exactly that if we don't let them marry?

And finally we come to this. In order to tell someone in this country that they can't do something, we MUST show that that behavior is detrimental to society . (IE endangers the life or property of others.) OCA has completely failed to show that gay MARRIAGE is detrimental to anyone (please don't confuse gay sex , which may be detrimental to society with gay marriage.)

In conclusion, OCA has failed to make his case that allowing gay marriage would impact society in any negative way. And failing that, he has likewise failed to show why it shouldn't be legal. His entire argument boils down to "it's icky" and frankly I agree, but in THIS country we don't tell people that they can't do icky things.

I hope the readers will agree that while I may not have convinced anyone that gay marriage is acceptable (because I personally disagree with gay marriage as well) I HAVE shown that from a legal standpoint our objections are not enough reason to outlaw gay marriage.

[jimnyc]

It's time to vote. Both OCA and Conhog have spent a lot of time with their presentations. We shouldn't vote based on what side you take on the subject, but who you think placed a better argument before us.

Vote away!

[jimnyc]

And I would like to take a moment to thank both participants. One on ones can get detailed and lengthy, while you would rather be posting about something else. Thanks for your time!

[ConHog]

Good debate OCA.