A Reasonable Solution To The Gay Marriage Debate

[Artevelde]

You know, I see that I am snwering questions and you are not. It must be nice for you.

Did I say anything like what you claimed?

The dangers of birth defects are increased dramatically. But is the chance of birth defects enough to outlaw it? Probably not. As long as the two people in question are consenting adults, it would not harm anyone.



Now, time for you to answer a question.

What gives you, or society, the right to say one relationship between consenting adults is good and should be rewarded, while also saying another relationship between consenting adults is bad and should be banned???

Finally a good question. Well, contrary to you I believe that there is such a thing as Society. That we are more, as human beings, than just a loose collection of individuals without any relation to each other or without any mutual rights and obligations. Human beings achieve their full potential as human beings within the framework of a society. For this to function, every society needs norms which it agrees upon and imposes on everyone. Some of these norms do change over time, some remain constant, and some change very frequently (the usual legislative process in a democracy for example).

And you have arbitrarily decided that this particular norm should not change?

I understand that we achieve much as a society. But the freedoms of the individual are paramount, and should never be dissolved for the "good of society". It is also paramount that the individual not be forced to fit a preconceived notion of what is normal, simply to satisfy society. If it harms no one, there should be no restrictions against it.

And my other questions were good questions as well. That you have no good answer does not change that.

Have you come up with any details or examples of how gay marriage "undermines society"? Because that was a very valid question that was asked of you.

You've got it backward. It's a very tiny minority who wants to change this social norm.

As for how it would harm society. Marriage is the foundation stone of the family unit which is the cornerstone of society (in many ways, one of the most important of which is also the raising and education of children). This is not something that should be tampered with lightly, on a whim.

 

[Artevelde]

There is no 'flash mob'. There are gays and lesbians, and friends, family & loved ones of gays and lesbians.

And in their name you would want to overturn basic social norms.

I think a better question is: why do you want to use the government to as a tool force upon the population what you happen to think is normal?

Wouldn’t it make more sense for the government to just step back, and allow people the right to choose who they would like to spend the rest of their lives with? I’m done with the authoritarian nanny-state regulations that you appear to support (what are you, some kind of commie?), I want a government that puts the power of choice in the hands of the individual.

The role of the Federal Government is to protect our rights and our property. It’s NOT to nanny-sit us and restrict our freedoms unnecessarily.

.
.
.

If you follow that through logically the obvious solution is the abolition of marriage in civil law.

 

[garyganu]

There is no 'flash mob'. There are gays and lesbians, and friends, family & loved ones of gays and lesbians.

And in their name you would want to overturn basic social norms.

I think a better question is: why do you want to use the government to as a tool force upon the population what you happen to think is normal?

Wouldn’t it make more sense for the government to just step back, and allow people the right to choose who they would like to spend the rest of their lives with? I’m done with the authoritarian nanny-state regulations that you appear to support (what are you, some kind of commie?), I want a government that puts the power of choice in the hands of the individual.


When it comes to government, less IS more.

.
.
.

I agree that less government is better. Especially the federal government. However states are deciding the issue regarding the redefinition of marriage. The states also impose public nudity laws.

According to your reasoning, public nudity should be allowed.

Do you believe people should be allowed to walk down the street naked? Why or why not?

 

[KevinWestern]

And in their name you would want to overturn basic social norms.

I think a better question is: why do you want to use the government to as a tool force upon the population what you happen to think is normal?

Wouldn’t it make more sense for the government to just step back, and allow people the right to choose who they would like to spend the rest of their lives with? I’m done with the authoritarian nanny-state regulations that you appear to support (what are you, some kind of commie?), I want a government that puts the power of choice in the hands of the individual.


When it comes to government, less IS more.

.
.
.

I agree that less government is better. Especially the federal government. However states are deciding the issue regarding the redefinition of marriage. The states also impose public nudity laws.

According to your reasoning, public nudity should be allowed.

Do you believe people should be allowed to walk down the street naked? Why or why not?

Personally, I can care less if people want to walk around naked. What harm does that do exactly? I don't know about you, but I've never heard of someone getting hurt from viewing a breast before, have you? There are much worse things to worry about, you know...

 

[BluePhantom]

You've got it backward. It's a very tiny minority who wants to change this social norm.

Go read the polls again. It's actually the majority of the nation who want to change this social norm.

As for how it would harm society. Marriage is the foundation stone of the family unit which is the cornerstone of society (in many ways, one of the most important of which is also the raising and education of children). This is not something that should be tampered with lightly, on a whim.

That's your opinion which is probably influenced by your religious beliefs. Give me a secular argument as to why gay marriage should be treated any differently than heterosexual marriage or how gay marriage has a negative impact on a family unit.

 

[BluePhantom]

According to your reasoning, public nudity should be allowed.

Do you believe people should be allowed to walk down the street naked? Why or why not?

It's legal in San Francisco. So long as they put a towel on a public chair they are using they are free to walk around nude if they wish....and they do. I would ask why we think we should cover up and scream every time a child sees us naked. It teaches them to be ashamed of their bodies.

 

[Artevelde]

You've got it backward. It's a very tiny minority who wants to change this social norm.

Go read the polls again. It's actually the majority of the nation who want to change this social norm.

As for how it would harm society. Marriage is the foundation stone of the family unit which is the cornerstone of society (in many ways, one of the most important of which is also the raising and education of children). This is not something that should be tampered with lightly, on a whim.

That's your opinion which is probably influenced by your religious beliefs. Give me a secular argument as to why gay marriage should be treated any differently than heterosexual marriage or how gay marriage has a negative impact on a family unit.

You are the one turning this into a religious argument, not me. I haven't referred to religion a single time in this discussion. Why are you obsessed with religion?

 

[garyganu]

I think a better question is: why do you want to use the government to as a tool force upon the population what you happen to think is normal?

Wouldn’t it make more sense for the government to just step back, and allow people the right to choose who they would like to spend the rest of their lives with? I’m done with the authoritarian nanny-state regulations that you appear to support (what are you, some kind of commie?), I want a government that puts the power of choice in the hands of the individual.


When it comes to government, less IS more.

.
.
.

I agree that less government is better. Especially the federal government. However states are deciding the issue regarding the redefinition of marriage. The states also impose public nudity laws.

According to your reasoning, public nudity should be allowed.

Do you believe people should be allowed to walk down the street naked? Why or why not?

Personally, I can care less if people want to walk around naked. What harm does that do exactly? I don't know about you, but I've never heard of someone getting hurt from viewing a breast before, have you? There are much worse things to worry about, you know...

OK, Just as I thought. People in favor of the redefinition of marriage have no social constraints what-so-ever.

Would you legalize public sex by the same reasoning?

 

[Artevelde]

According to your reasoning, public nudity should be allowed.

Do you believe people should be allowed to walk down the street naked? Why or why not?

It's legal in San Francisco. So long as they put a towel on a public chair they are using they are free to walk around nude if they wish....and they do

So you can walk around nude in the streets of San Francisco? I don't think so. But why don't you go ahead and try.

 

[WinterBorn]

There is no 'flash mob'. There are gays and lesbians, and friends, family & loved ones of gays and lesbians.

And in their name you would want to overturn basic social norms.

I think a better question is: why do you want to use the government to as a tool force upon the population what you happen to think is normal?

Wouldn’t it make more sense for the government to just step back, and allow people the right to choose who they would like to spend the rest of their lives with? I’m done with the authoritarian nanny-state regulations that you appear to support (what are you, some kind of commie?), I want a government that puts the power of choice in the hands of the individual.

The role of the Federal Government is to protect our rights and our property. It’s NOT to nanny-sit us and restrict our freedoms unnecessarily.

.
.
.

I am all for removing the gov't from the marriage equation. And removing the benefits that go with it.

 

[rightwinger]

And in their name you would want to overturn basic social norms.

I think a better question is: why do you want to use the government to as a tool force upon the population what you happen to think is normal?

Wouldn’t it make more sense for the government to just step back, and allow people the right to choose who they would like to spend the rest of their lives with? I’m done with the authoritarian nanny-state regulations that you appear to support (what are you, some kind of commie?), I want a government that puts the power of choice in the hands of the individual.


When it comes to government, less IS more.

.
.
.

I agree that less government is better. Especially the federal government. However states are deciding the issue regarding the redefinition of marriage. The states also impose public nudity laws.

According to your reasoning, public nudity should be allowed.

Do you believe people should be allowed to walk down the street naked? Why or why not?

Some people yes.......others definitely no

 

[WinterBorn]

Finally a good question. Well, contrary to you I believe that there is such a thing as Society. That we are more, as human beings, than just a loose collection of individuals without any relation to each other or without any mutual rights and obligations. Human beings achieve their full potential as human beings within the framework of a society. For this to function, every society needs norms which it agrees upon and imposes on everyone. Some of these norms do change over time, some remain constant, and some change very frequently (the usual legislative process in a democracy for example).

And you have arbitrarily decided that this particular norm should not change?

I understand that we achieve much as a society. But the freedoms of the individual are paramount, and should never be dissolved for the "good of society". It is also paramount that the individual not be forced to fit a preconceived notion of what is normal, simply to satisfy society. If it harms no one, there should be no restrictions against it.

And my other questions were good questions as well. That you have no good answer does not change that.

Have you come up with any details or examples of how gay marriage "undermines society"? Because that was a very valid question that was asked of you.

You've got it backward. It's a very tiny minority who wants to change this social norm.

As for how it would harm society. Marriage is the foundation stone of the family unit which is the cornerstone of society (in many ways, one of the most important of which is also the raising and education of children). This is not something that should be tampered with lightly, on a whim.

This is hardly a whim.

But the important distinction you are ignoring is that these gay couples are already living together in our society. They are already productive members of our society. They are often already raising children. We simply think they should have the same gov't benefits for doing so.

 

[BDBoop]

And if anybody sees Isaiah Mustafa out there in the buff, you better call me!!!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owGykVbfgUE]Old Spice | The Man Your Man Could Smell Like - YouTube[/ame]

 

[KevinWestern]

I agree that less government is better. Especially the federal government. However states are deciding the issue regarding the redefinition of marriage. The states also impose public nudity laws.

According to your reasoning, public nudity should be allowed.

Do you believe people should be allowed to walk down the street naked? Why or why not?

Personally, I can care less if people want to walk around naked. What harm does that do exactly? I don't know about you, but I've never heard of someone getting hurt from viewing a breast before, have you? There are much worse things to worry about, you know...

OK, Just as I thought. People in favor of the redefinition of marriage have no social constraints what-so-ever.

Would you legalize public sex by the same reasoning?

Wrong, bucko. I have many social constraints that I live in accordance by, and will teach my children to adhere to. However, I don’t believe it is the place of the government to ENFORCE social constraints upon my life unless absolutely necessary when my rights or my property is at risk.

Personally, I would rather live in an environment where I am free to choose, vs a communist state where the government makes those choices for me.

What about you?

 

[Artevelde]

And you have arbitrarily decided that this particular norm should not change?

I understand that we achieve much as a society. But the freedoms of the individual are paramount, and should never be dissolved for the "good of society". It is also paramount that the individual not be forced to fit a preconceived notion of what is normal, simply to satisfy society. If it harms no one, there should be no restrictions against it.

And my other questions were good questions as well. That you have no good answer does not change that.

Have you come up with any details or examples of how gay marriage "undermines society"? Because that was a very valid question that was asked of you.

You've got it backward. It's a very tiny minority who wants to change this social norm.

As for how it would harm society. Marriage is the foundation stone of the family unit which is the cornerstone of society (in many ways, one of the most important of which is also the raising and education of children). This is not something that should be tampered with lightly, on a whim.

This is hardly a whim.

But the important distinction you are ignoring is that these gay couples are already living together in our society. They are already productive members of our society. They are often already raising children. We simply think they should have the same gov't benefits for doing so.

It is a whim. You point it out yourself by writing that they are already living together. Obviously they are, so what?

And government benefits as an argument? Please. Personally, I don't see why there should be any government benefits to being married.

 

[garyganu]

And in their name you would want to overturn basic social norms.

I think a better question is: why do you want to use the government to as a tool force upon the population what you happen to think is normal?

Wouldn’t it make more sense for the government to just step back, and allow people the right to choose who they would like to spend the rest of their lives with? I’m done with the authoritarian nanny-state regulations that you appear to support (what are you, some kind of commie?), I want a government that puts the power of choice in the hands of the individual.

The role of the Federal Government is to protect our rights and our property. It’s NOT to nanny-sit us and restrict our freedoms unnecessarily.

.
.
.

I am all for removing the gov't from the marriage equation. And removing the benefits that go with it.

Wow, Your statement is proof that the gay marriage debate IS destroying the institution of marriage.

However, I do agree that the federal government shout stay out of it. Marriage has always been an issue for the states. I also believe in a Flat tax with no deductions for anyone, the rich, the poor or the married.

 

[WinterBorn]

Personally, I can care less if people want to walk around naked. What harm does that do exactly? I don't know about you, but I've never heard of someone getting hurt from viewing a breast before, have you? There are much worse things to worry about, you know...

OK, Just as I thought. People in favor of the redefinition of marriage have no social constraints what-so-ever.

Would you legalize public sex by the same reasoning?

Wrong, bucko. I have many social constraints that I live in accordance by, and will teach my children to adhere to. However, I don’t believe it is the place of the government to ENFORCE social constraints upon my life unless absolutely necessary when my rights or my property is at risk.

Personally, I would rather live in an environment where I am free to choose, vs a communist state where the government makes those choices for me.

What about you?

You know, its interesting that the conservatives claim to be about smaller and less intrusive gov't. But they want plenty of regulations concerning personal issues that effect no one.

 

[Artevelde]

Personally, I can care less if people want to walk around naked. What harm does that do exactly? I don't know about you, but I've never heard of someone getting hurt from viewing a breast before, have you? There are much worse things to worry about, you know...

OK, Just as I thought. People in favor of the redefinition of marriage have no social constraints what-so-ever.

Would you legalize public sex by the same reasoning?

Wrong, bucko. I have many social constraints that I live in accordance by, and will teach my children to adhere to. However, I don’t believe it is the place of the government to ENFORCE social constraints upon my life unless absolutely necessary when my rights or my property is at risk.

Personally, I would rather live in an environment where I am free to choose, vs a communist state where the government makes those choices for me.

What about you?

Newsflash: if you want to live in society there are societal constraints. Of course you can always decide to become a hermit and seperate yourself completely from society. Good luck with that.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Well after tomorrow and the amendment get's past gay marriage is dead in the water for North Carolina that is.

Until a few years down the road when it repealed by a vote just like it was passed.

What can be enacted by the vote can be repealed by the vote.



>>>>

 

[garyganu]

Personally, I can care less if people want to walk around naked. What harm does that do exactly? I don't know about you, but I've never heard of someone getting hurt from viewing a breast before, have you? There are much worse things to worry about, you know...

OK, Just as I thought. People in favor of the redefinition of marriage have no social constraints what-so-ever.

Would you legalize public sex by the same reasoning?

Wrong, bucko. I have many social constraints that I live in accordance by, and will teach my children to adhere to. However, I don’t believe it is the place of the government to ENFORCE social constraints upon my life unless absolutely necessary when my rights or my property is at risk.

Personally, I would rather live in an environment where I am free to choose, vs a communist state where the government makes those choices for me.

What about you?

I would like to live in an environment where local governments do ENFORCE laws against public sex, and disturbingly loud noises in public. How about you?