Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 41
  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    16
    Post Thanks / Like

    My solution to gays.

    I know... total bigot: you evolved, you're smarter, I'm a jerk, and I must not have any friends who are gay, and I must live a shelled existence...
    But c'mon hear me out:
    Gays should date gays...of the opposite sex.
    I'm not even going into the whole rights thing because you know my answer... I don't think gay marriage is a thing -you can still live together, sign your own paper, It comes down to taxes doesn't it? and I think you guys have all the rights otherwise so what's the deal? but that's my solution whaddya think?

  2. #2
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,971
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: My solution to gays.

    Quote Originally Posted by Liveline View Post
    I don't think gay marriage is a thing -you can still live together, sign your own paper, It comes down to taxes doesn't it?
    Is that what it comes down to in heterosexual marriage?

    And don't pull out the procreation argument since that has never been a requirement for marriage.

    Quote Originally Posted by Liveline View Post
    and I think you guys have all the rights otherwise so what's the deal? but that's my solution whaddya think?
    The correct solution is gradually being implemented. Apply the laws equally to all people, straight and gay. If one group can legally do something then so can the other group.

    So the government can recognize the marriages of both straights and gays or it can refuse to recognize any marriage. But recognizing the marriage of just one group is clearly discrimination against the other.

  3. #3
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: My solution to gays.

    The correct solution is gradually being implemented. Apply the laws equally to all people, straight and gay. If one group can legally do something then so can the other group.
    I'm not sure how you think this works with same-sex marriage. Before the rulings, both straight persons and gay persons could not legally marry a person of the same sex.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  4. #4
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,971
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: My solution to gays.

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    I'm not sure how you think this works with same-sex marriage. Before the rulings, both straight persons and gay persons could not legally marry a person of the same sex.
    Which gave heterosexuals greater ability to legally marry the persons they choose to marry.

    I hold that gays and straights should have the same legal ability to marry the person they choose to marry.
    Last edited by mican333; July 6th, 2014 at 08:04 AM.

  5. #5
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,156
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: My solution to gays.

    Hi Liveline, welcome to ODN

    Sounds like a silly arrangement to me. You just create a marriage where two people aren't at all attracted to each other and have pretty much no hope of ever being attracted to each other. I don't think that works for anyone.

    The real solution to gays is, leave them be.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  6. #6
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: My solution to gays.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Which gave heterosexuals greater ability to legally marry the persons they choose to marry.

    I hold that gays and straights should have the same legal ability to marry the person they choose to marry.
    You don't have any right to marry the person you choose. I can't just choose to marry, say, Emma Watson.

    Straight men, gay men, straight women, gay women, and everything inbetween enjoyed the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

    The discrimination, such as it was, was based on sex, not sexual orientation; women, not men, had a right to marry men, and men, not women, had a right to marry women.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  7. Likes Squatch347 liked this post
  8. #7
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,971
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: My solution to gays.

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    You don't have any right to marry the person you choose. I can't just choose to marry, say, Emma Watson.
    I thought it went without saying that the person you marry has to consent to marrying you. But if I gotta say it, I'm saying it now.

    I will also say that only those who can legally consent to marriage are legally valid marriage partners.

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    Straight men, gay men, straight women, gay women, and everything inbetween enjoyed the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.
    And as I said, heterosexuals have a greater ability to legally marry the persons they choose to marry than gays do which violates my desire to have them be legal equals.

    And there most certainly is a right to marry the person you choose (provided they can consent to marriage and agree to marry you). It's an essential part of the right to marriage, which is a recognized legal right.

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    The discrimination, such as it was, was based on sex, not sexual orientation; women, not men, had a right to marry men, and men, not women, had a right to marry women.
    That is another way to look at it.

    But it's still a fact that straights have a greater legal ability to marry the person they choose to marry than gays do under the law and I hold that that should change.

  9. #8
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: My solution to gays.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I thought it went without saying that the person you marry has to consent to marrying you. But if I gotta say it, I'm saying it now.

    I will also say that only those who can legally consent to marriage are legally valid marriage partners.
    Sure, but neither homosexuals, heterosexuals, men, nor women enjoyed a right to "marry anyone they chose who consented to the marriage". If two heterosexual men consented to marriage, they couldn't marry, just as two heterosexual women, or two homosexual men, or a homosexual man and a heterosexual man, etc.

    And as I said, heterosexuals have a greater ability to legally marry the persons they choose to marry than gays do which violates my desire to have them be legal equals.
    I'm not sure what this means. You can say it, but you haven't shown it.

    And there most certainly is a right to marry the person you choose (provided they can consent to marriage and agree to marry you). It's an essential part of the right to marriage, which is a recognized legal right.
    Support? Or is this just your opinion?

    That is another way to look at it.

    But it's still a fact that straights have a greater legal ability to marry the person they choose to marry than gays do under the law and I hold that that should change.
    No, they didn't. Just as anyone else, they were constrained to marry only persons of the opposite sex, regardless of who they wanted to marry or who consented to marry them.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  10. #9
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,948
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: My solution to gays.

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    Sure, but neither homosexuals, heterosexuals, men, nor women enjoyed a right to "marry anyone they chose who consented to the marriage". If two heterosexual men consented to marriage, they couldn't marry, just as two heterosexual women, or two homosexual men, or a homosexual man and a heterosexual man, etc.

    But is that a problem? Are there such cases which need redress?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  11. #10
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,971
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: My solution to gays.

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    Sure, but neither homosexuals, heterosexuals, men, nor women enjoyed a right to "marry anyone they chose who consented to the marriage". If two heterosexual men consented to marriage, they couldn't marry, just as two heterosexual women, or two homosexual men, or a homosexual man and a heterosexual man, etc.
    First off, we should nail down what the controversy is actually about. It's not about letting gays marry, as in have a marriage ceremony and say "I do" and such. They already have the legal right to do that. The issue is over government recognition of those unions. The governments uniformly recognize the marriages of opposite-sex couples but don't do the same for same-sex couples.

    So the issue is of discrimination of same-sex married couples when compared to opposite-sex married couples.

    And while it is feasible for two heterosexuals to have a same-sex marriage, it is a recognized reality that these unions are made up primarily, if not entirely, of gay people and I hold that to discriminate against an institution that is primarily made up of gay people is to discriminate against gay people themselves. And this notion appears to be legally valid as pro-gay marriage rulings do call it discrimination based on sexual orientation so they likewise do not separate the institution from the people who belong to it.

    If you want to choose to separate the people from the institution, that's up to you. But the argument I originally made about equal treatment for gays does not make that separation. Nor will I unless I hear a good reason to do so.

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    I'm not sure what this means. You can say it, but you haven't shown it.
    I'm sure you will agree that a heterosexual is much more likely to choose a partner of the opposite sex than a gay person. And I'm sure you'll agree the opposite is true.

    Therefore outlawing gay marriage makes it much harder for a gay person to marry who he/she chooses to marry than it does for heterosexuals since practically any prospective spouse a gay person would choose to marry is not eligible to marry them.


    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    Support? Or is this just your opinion?
    I can support it. The case Loving vs. Virginia legalized interracial marriage. Loving, a black man, CHOSE to marry a white woman and was legally punished for doing so. The SCOTUS ruled that denying Loving the right to marry the woman he chose to marry was denying him the right to marry. If being able to marry the person one chooses to marry is not part of the right to marry, then the state would not be violating his right to marry as long as it allowed him to marry someone else, like a black woman. But of course the state could not punish him for marrying that particular woman even if it allowed him to marry others so his right to marry who he wanted was very much a part of his general right to marry.


    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    No, they didn't. Just as anyone else, they were constrained to marry only persons of the opposite sex, regardless of who they wanted to marry or who consented to marry them.
    But straights generally don't want to marry those of the same gender. Again, I said that straights have a greater legal ability to marry the person they choose to marry than gays do under the law.

  12. #11
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: My solution to gays.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    First off, we should nail down what the controversy is actually about. It's not about letting gays marry, as in have a marriage ceremony and say "I do" and such. They already have the legal right to do that. The issue is over government recognition of those unions. The governments uniformly recognize the marriages of opposite-sex couples but don't do the same for same-sex couples.

    So the issue is of discrimination of same-sex married couples when compared to opposite-sex married couples.

    And while it is feasible for two heterosexuals to have a same-sex marriage, it is a recognized reality that these unions are made up primarily, if not entirely, of gay people and I hold that to discriminate against an institution that is primarily made up of gay people is to discriminate against gay people themselves. And this notion appears to be legally valid as pro-gay marriage rulings do call it discrimination based on sexual orientation so they likewise do not separate the institution from the people who belong to it.

    If you want to choose to separate the people from the institution, that's up to you. But the argument I originally made about equal treatment for gays does not make that separation. Nor will I unless I hear a good reason to do so.
    The controversy according to you is about a right enjoyed by one group of people that isn't enjoyed by another; you identified these groups as homosexuals and heterosexuals. I think you've just conceded that your grouping was wrong.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  13. #12
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,971
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: My solution to gays.

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    The controversy according to you is about a right enjoyed by one group of people that isn't enjoyed by another; you identified these groups as homosexuals and heterosexuals. I think you've just conceded that your grouping was wrong.
    My original argument is that I believe that gays should be legally allowed to do the same thing that straights can do and that banning gay marriage violates this principle. And I've supported that the right to marry who you choose to marry is integral to the right to marry (you did not rebut that particular argument from my last post so it stands as supported until it is rebutted) and therefore banning same-sex unions denies gays the right to marry who they choose in comparison to straights.

    And of course gays choose to marry those of the same gender exclusively (or almost exclusively) so a ban on that kind of marriage violates their right to marry who they choose much more than it does straights.
    Last edited by mican333; July 7th, 2014 at 08:16 AM.

  14. #13
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,264
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: My solution to gays.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    My original argument is that I believe that gays should be legally allowed to do the same thing that straights can do and that banning gay marriage violates this principle.
    How would you respond to this argument? "Men should have the same right to be mothers as women do. If I care for and nurture my children, I should be allowed to call myself their mother and legally be their mother, even if I am a man."

    It is nonsense, of course. By definition, a mother is the female parent of offspring. Any man demanding the legal right to be a mother is an idiot, and should be treated as such. The only way a man can be a mother is to change the definition of the word mother.

    Marriage, as it has been understood and defined in the past, is the union of opposite sex individuals. It is IMPOSSIBLE for two men or two women to get married. Gay "marriage" is a figment of the imagination supported only be redefining the word marriage. If I point at a mouse and call it an elephant, is it one? No. If everyone on earth, including courts of law, started calling mice "elephants" would that make them the same as real elephants? No. Homosexuals may use "marriage" to describe their unions, and may even have them legally recognized as such. But those of us who know the true meaning of marriage will never accept homosexual couples as legitimately married, because there is no such thing as gay marriage. The whole concept is a fraud.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  15. #14
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,971
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: My solution to gays.

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Marriage, as it has been understood and defined in the past, is the union of opposite sex individuals. It is IMPOSSIBLE for two men or two women to get married. Gay "marriage" is a figment of the imagination supported only be redefining the word marriage.
    And since redefining the word can be done and is being done, gays can be married.

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    If I point at a mouse and call it an elephant, is it one? No. If everyone on earth, including courts of law, started calling mice "elephants" would that make them the same as real elephants? No.
    If you are asking whether the mice would become large and grow tusks, of course not. If you mean that from that point on, when someone said "elephant" they are referring to small rodents then those creatures would indeed be "elephants" from then on and there would be no valid basis to continue to call them "mice" anymore.


    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Homosexuals may use "marriage" to describe their unions, and may even have them legally recognized as such. But those of us who know the true meaning of marriage will never accept homosexual couples as legitimately married, because there is no such thing as gay marriage. The whole concept is a fraud.
    But clearly you stating nothing other than an opinion. If it's your opinion that "marriage" only includes heterosexuals, then you are welcome to your opinion. But that means as much or as little to others as they happen to care about your opinion on the matter. And likewise if you want to call a mouse an "elephant" you may but again, that only matters to those who happen to care how you define such things.

  16. #15
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,264
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: My solution to gays.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    If it's your opinion that "marriage" only includes heterosexuals, then you are welcome to your opinion. But that means as much or as little to others as they happen to care about your opinion on the matter.
    Untrue. The goals for homosexuals are not only the legalization of gay "marriage" but also full and equal social acceptance. The first is important to them and may be realized, but it is disingenuous or naive to suggest that homosexuals don't care about overall social acceptance from the average person.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  17. #16
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,971
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: My solution to gays.

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Untrue. The goals for homosexuals are not only the legalization of gay "marriage" but also full and equal social acceptance. The first is important to them and may be realized, but it is disingenuous or naive to suggest that homosexuals don't care about overall social acceptance from the average person.
    And it is disingenuous or naive to suggest that heterosexuals don't care about overall social acceptance from the average person.

    But besides that, your argument does not rebut my previous argument. Again, you are free to state that marriage is defined a certain way but that's just your opinion and has as much bearing as an opinion of yours may have - of course that goes for everyone else as well.

  18. #17
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,156
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: My solution to gays.

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Untrue. The goals for homosexuals are not only the legalization of gay "marriage" but also full and equal social acceptance. The first is important to them and may be realized, but it is disingenuous or naive to suggest that homosexuals don't care about overall social acceptance from the average person.
    I think this is true and understandable as most people want to be accepted. I will say though that while I strongly support equal legal rights, and personally think its wise to accept people who do you no harm, it is up to each individual to accept or not accept people into their social circles.

    Legal battles and social battles often go hand in hand but the way we resolve them should always be rather different in terms of expecting compliance.

    While many may feel intolerance is wrong, you are legally entitled to it as much as a gay person is entitled to live their life with who they choose to.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  19. #18
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,264
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: My solution to gays.

    The English language allows people to use different words to differentiate between similar objects or relationships. We have the words rectangle, square and rhombus for more specific identification of quadrilaterals. With relationships we have the words son, daughter, father, mother, step-mother, foster mother, mother-in-law, etc. But for marriage, homosexuals refuse to accept any other word or variation for their relationship. They want the word "marriage" to apply to any kind of union: male-female, male-male, female-female, because they want no distinction, either legally or socially. They could have their relationship and call it something else, as they have in the past, but now refuse, and instead corrupt the meaning of marriage in the hope that future generations will view all relationships equally. And it will probably work. But homosexual "marriage" is a fraud. It is the fake Louis Vuitton, the cheap imitation Rembrandt facsimile, the supposed silk purse made from a sow's ear. The fact that people will buy the fraud makes it no less a fraud.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  20. #19
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,971
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: My solution to gays.

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    But for marriage, homosexuals refuse to accept any other word or variation for their relationship. They want the word "marriage" to apply to any kind of union: male-female, male-male, female-female, because they want no distinction, either legally or socially.
    It's almost as if they want to be equal with heterosexuals, legally and socially. Since I consider them equal I don't have a problem with this.

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    They could have their relationship and call it something else, as they have in the past, but now refuse, and instead corrupt the meaning of marriage in the hope that future generations will view all relationships equally.
    I agree. Except for calling it "corrupt". That's just your opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    But homosexual "marriage" is a fraud. It is the fake Louis Vuitton, the cheap imitation Rembrandt facsimile, the supposed silk purse made from a sow's ear. The fact that people will buy the fraud makes it no less a fraud.
    If you are saying that as your opinion, your opinion is noted.

    If you are saying that as a factual statement, support or retract.

  21. #20
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,264
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: My solution to gays.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    If you are saying that as a factual statement, support or retract.
    A waste of time. My morality is rooted in the Bible, and yours is of the culture.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

 

 
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Born this way.... God and gays....
    By Tanus Barbarus in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 83
    Last Post: March 26th, 2012, 04:04 AM
  2. Should gays be able to vote?
    By surreal5335 in forum Shootin' the Breeze / Off-Topic
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: December 17th, 2009, 11:37 AM
  3. Should gays be able to vote?
    By surreal5335 in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: August 17th, 2009, 02:30 PM
  4. Why I can't stand gays
    By ShadowKnight in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 82
    Last Post: March 27th, 2006, 12:39 PM
  5. Are gays being discriminated?
    By nanderson in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 103
    Last Post: September 14th, 2005, 03:49 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •