Miss California?

[Cat]

You are allowed to have an opinion and religious views, Ruby. But you have no right to tell people they cannot live the life they choose, with whomever they want.

There are somethings in society I personally find distasteful (will not reveal for fear of derailing this thread) yet I will NEVER tell someone they have no right to do said "something." It is their right, and does not effect me.

If a society is so weak and pathetic that people loving each other will bring it down....then I have no need for such a society.

[BroomJockey]

I believe that sinful behavior brings judgment upon a society. No, I'm not expecting "fire and brimstone" to reign down, but I do think that society will suffer in the long run if we openly embrace things like homosexuality as being normal and acceptable. This view is based in my religious background.

What you continue to fail to do is present any actual reason why your view should be the preferred one. "It's my view" doesn't cut it on a debate site. I don't mean to be rude, but your continued refusal to actually back up anything you've said is equivalent to going "LALALALALA I'M NOT LISTENING I'M RIGHT YOU'RE WRONG." You're completely free to have your beliefs. But to state "My view is the correct one" isn't even trying. It fails the basic premise of a debate, which is that you're trying to convince someone else you're correct. It's been continually stated that there are multiple societies which are functioning perfectly normally with gay marriage as an accepted practice, so there's no immediate effect on society, in a bad fashion. But it's your claim that it's bad anyways.

I'm sorry, but on a site for debate, "My view is correct" doesn't even come close to acceptable reasoning.

[Rubystars]

I believe that sinful behavior brings judgment upon a society. No, I'm not expecting "fire and brimstone" to reign down, but I do think that society will suffer in the long run if we openly embrace things like homosexuality as being normal and acceptable. This view is based in my religious background.

[Cat]

Gay marriage is legal in CT....and we're a pretty rockin' state.

No fire and brimstone, the nutmeg society hasn't crumbled, dogs and cats DO live together in peace, LI sound is still polluted, the Q and Amistad still sail.

In other words...business as usual

[Wingates_Hellsing]

I would like to point you to my above post which seems to have been posted while you were still writing yours.

That said, we all think of our opinions being correct, but aren't arrogant enough to believe that our opinions are the right opinions for our entire society. Furthermore, it's arrogant to think of yourself as correct when you admit that you have no proof of anything.

I guess if it's not a basic right for people to marry the people they love, it's not necessary to have marriage at all. If it is, it's dictated by the constitution and our society that everyone is extended that right.

It's also unethical in the extreme to legislate against something you have no proof is a threat. If I were to create a billion-strong religion that believed aliens will smite us if we kiss someone somewhere other than the mouth, should that be made into legislation so as to protect us? of course not, there's no threat until proven otherwise. Furthermore, any system which does not extend equal rights is broken in this society and government.

I would also like to see something other than the 'but they can still marry women' argument. It's irrelevant because we aren't talking about the right to marry women, we're talking about the right to marry the person we want to marry regardless of gender, race, religion, etc.

It used to be that blacks couldn't marry whites, which prevented people who love each other from marrying. How is that any different, Ruby?

[Rubystars]

Wow. The arrogance is palpable, and we finally have our answer.

I tried to just be as blunt as I could in that post because I felt like everything else I was posting was being misunderstood. I do think my opinion is right, but the rest of you think your opinion is right. What I tried to say, several times, was that no matter why people have their opinions, everyone has the right to advocate for what they believe in, including gays. So we both have the right to fight for our own side of the issue. Why do you want gay rights to prevail? Because you think it's a civil rights violation for it not to, right? So you want to get your way because you believe that your opinion is the right one. Make sense?

Let's continue, I for one would like to reiterate the request for some sort of proof regarding some sort of negative effect on society should Homosexuals be allowed to enter into a beneficial social contract many would, in common usage/conversation, refer to as 'marriage'.

An individual gay couple or a few gay couples probably aren't going to impact society all that negatively. However, I'm concerned about what ramifactions redefining marriage and family will have for society in the future. I'm not sure what those would be, and I don't think evidence would be easy to come by to prove those outcomes because it hasn't happened yet. I wonder what kind of societies would result from family structures that aren't based on blood and man-woman marriage. I guess my main argument is this. If it isn't broken, why fix it?

Furthermore, I would like to hear a specific answer as to why restricting Homosexual marriage is any less an infringement upon a person's rights than restricting Heterosexual marriage.

It may be an infringement on your rights if you believe that someone has a fundamental human right to marry any person of proper age that they love regardless of gender. However I don't believe that such a thing is a necessary human right. That's what the difference is. I don't see it as violating people's rights, because I don't think people have the right to get the government to condone their homosexual behavior anyway.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Statistically anal sex is far more frequent among Heterosexuals due to the loss of stigma around the act and increased education. Also throw into the pot that there's more options out there than anal sex for gay men, and I believe your argument is thin at best.

Furthermore, we aren't talking about the government issuing statements saying that it's O.K. to be gay, because many already have, because it's true. We are talking about extending a basic and necessary right to a group of people who have been deprived of it.

P.S. Any type of sex carries risk, and every type of sex is perfectly safe if properly executed, with a few exceptions such as oxygen deprivation which are based on mortal danger.

[Rubystars]

So, if you are unable to demonstrably prove that, why should your morals be imposed on society? Just to make you more comfortable? Just to defend your personal definition of a word?

It was the Christian morals that were already dominant in society. It was the gay activists that were trying to change that, to impose their form of morality on the rest of society. That's why I think you have it backwards.

Honestly, speaking from your brain, not your heart, please justify the imposition of a moral code not widely accepted, through the use of law. Use logic and reasoning, evidence if possible. Something more than "marriage is defined as between a man and a woman." Because definitions change. Last generation's conservatives are this generation's liberals.

This doesn't apply to lesbians, but sex between two men is inherently more risky for transmission of diseases because of anal bleeding. This poses a higher risk to the homosexuals themselves and to society at large.

Notice this pro-gay article
http://gayteens.about.com/od/safesexstds/f/gay_STDs.htm

It tries to say that it's not limited to gay sex because straight couples do this too. However that doesn't change the fact that anal sex is inherently more risky as the article itself points out.

If this is true and gay men are engaging in risky sex, then it does pose a public health risk.

I'm not even asking for gay sex to be illegal. I'm just asking that the government doesn't officially condone the behavior.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Let me try it one more time ok? Then I give up



Because it's the right opinion.

Wow. The arrogance is palpable, and we finally have our answer.

Let's continue, I for one would like to reiterate the request for some sort of proof regarding some sort of negative effect on society should Homosexuals be allowed to enter into a beneficial social contract many would, in common usage/conversation, refer to as 'marriage'.

Furthermore, I would like to hear a specific answer as to why restricting Homosexual marriage is any less an infringement upon a person's rights than restricting Heterosexual marriage.

[Cat]

Let me try it one more time ok? Then I give up



Because it's the right opinion.

No.


It is not.

[BroomJockey]

Let me try it one more time ok? Then I give up



Because it's the right opinion.

Wow, the unmitigated arrogance. Guess you can ignore my previous post.

[BroomJockey]

I should have kept my response to one word: YES

Finally. A straight answer. So, your opinion, which isn't even held by every member of your group, should be used to not only decide morality for the country, but restrict the rights of humans by writ of law. And not a single person has said "you are not allowed to have your opinion."

Now that we have that out of the way, here's the thing: laws aren't supposed to be legislating morality, they're supposed to be used to prevent actions which are demonstrably detrimental to society.

So, do you have any ability to show that your position is correct, ie "Gay marriage will have a negative effect on the people this country"? Because that's the only standard by which laws are meant to be created, to deter behaviour which impinges on the right or lives of others.

So, if you are unable to demonstrably prove that, why should your morals be imposed on society? Just to make you more comfortable? Just to defend your personal definition of a word?

Honestly, speaking from your brain, not your heart, please justify the imposition of a moral code not widely accepted, through the use of law. Use logic and reasoning, evidence if possible. Something more than "marriage is defined as between a man and a woman." Because definitions change. Last generation's conservatives are this generation's liberals.

[Peppergirl]

Let me try it one more time ok? Then I give up



Because it's the right opinion.

And there you have it. That sums it up.

Jesus.

[Rubystars]

Let me try it one more time ok? Then I give up

In a society where laws are created in order not to legislate morality, but prevent harm to the greatest number of people, why should your opinion be the one adopted in to law when it harms the rights of a group?

Because it's the right opinion.

[Rubystars]

*bzzt* Still not answering the question. Not "if it is adopted should it be put in to law." At this point, I have to believe you're doing it on purpose.

How many different ways do you want me to try to say it so that it meets the grammar police standard?

I should have kept my response to one word: YES

On the other hand at least I'm not using words or phrases like the following:
Another words for in other words
Grap hold of for grab hold of
or shudders for shutters on a window