Should same-sex marriage be legal?

[Chris_]

Hi conservativecave,

I'm testing out my new site rgument.com with a really controversial topic: "Same-sex marriages shouldn't be allowed". I've posted here as well as a popular LGBT forum in the hopes of finding people on both sides of the divide. Please help me build a list of the best arguments on either side of this fascinating debate. Thanks!

P.S. If you have any suggestions as to the functionality of the site I'd love to hear them.

http://www.reddit.com/user/gomezuk

http://rgument.com/Same-sex-marriages-shouldn-t-be-allowed/rguments/view/19

Funny, I wonder why I can't seem to find the other side of this discussion.  This IS a public forum... anyone can read this thread.

I really can't stand people who post and run.

It's always the hit-and-run types that start bullshit threads like this that suck all the air out of the room and never return.  13 pages of threads on gay marriage.  I know!  Let's start ANOTHER one.  And then wilbur's stupid ass shows up.

[Thor]

It's always the hit-and-run types that start bullshit threads like this that suck all the air out of the room and never return.  13 pages of threads on gay marriage.  I know!  Let's start ANOTHER one.  And then wilbur's stupid ass shows up.

I can't help but think of "Mr. Ed" whenever I see Wilbur's posts..... Ohh  and that he must think he's special because he can spell his name backwards.

[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axS0iGoFTT0[/youtube]

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Finally, a constitutional argument for teachers poking their students...from DU no less:

proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list    Sun Mar-27-11 07:32 PM
Original message
Wichita teacher convicted of sexing student, fighting for others' rights to sleep with students
   
Just what teachers need - not.

Finally, someone is sticking up for teachers' rights -- to sleep with their students. A Wichita choir instructor convicted Thursday of having unlawful sex with a student is trying to play martyr for the cause, according to the Wichita Eagle.

Charles Edwards, 30, was teaching at Wichita Northwest High School when he met an 18-year-old female student with whom he later had sex. Now his attorney, Steve Mank, is saying Edwards agreed to the conviction so he could appeal the Kansas law that makes it illegal for teachers to sleep with their students, regardless of age.

Mank told the Eagle that he'll argue the law is unconstitutional when it involves consensual sex with an adult student. Either way, it violates trust and opens the school to a shitload of liability. And parents probably can't wait to rally around Edwards and support his cause.

Edwards' sentencing is scheduled for May 17. Guidelines allow a range, from probation to 17 months in prison.

http://blogs.pitch.com/plog/2011/03/charles_edwards_sex...

apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list    Sun Mar-27-11 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Okay, but the problem with the law is it creates a "class" of persons who do not have equal
   
protection under the law.

I agree he should be fired and face civil penalties for violating his contract. And certainly what he did was unethical.

But had he not been a teacher, then his sexual liason with this consenting adult would have been considered a legal act.

It's even worse than that: it creates a "class" of persons on both ends of the encounter, because had the woman - emphasis again: grown, adult, woman - not been a student, but he was still a teacher, then the act once again becomes a legal one.

When the law starts treating different classes of people differently for doing essentially the same things, I get very concerned. We've been down this road before, and it wasn't pretty.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x754751

In this case the student was 18 but there are states where the age of consent is 16 or lower. So, does asspuckerlipsblow have a point that the law creates a class that does not enjoy equal protection under the law?

hmmm...

[Eupher]

Finally, a constitutional argument for teachers poking their students...from DU no less:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x754751

In this case the student was 18 but there are states where the age of consent is 16 or lower. So, does asspuckerlipsblow have a point that the law creates a class that does not enjoy equal protection under the law?

hmmm...

In my opinion, no. Within his official position as a teacher, he is prohibited from having sex with his students. The reasons why are obvious and I won't go there except to say that there is special trust and confidence placed in that person to behave in a way that does not even lend the appearance of partiality. In this sense, all students are a class under the law and deserve a predefined expectation of treatment. Once this special trust and confidence is eroded by a teacher sleeping with a student, the learning atmosphere is eroded itself and becomes sidetracked.

Now, this same guy -- outside his position as a teacher -- is permitted under the law to have consensual sex with another adult, who is not in the position of a student.

It's a fine line, but I think it's clear.

If a teacher has an official capacity with a student, special rules go into effect. If the individuals involved do NOT have an official capacity with one another, it's a whole 'nother ball game. (no pun intended)

[rubliw]

You are obviously ignorant of anatomy and physiology.

The sun is particularly well suited to warm the earth.... but is that its purpose?

Oh I know the basics of anatomy and physiology, and a little bit beyond.  But "purpose" and "function" (ie, a task to which something is particularly well suited) are getting confused here.   Purpose implies intent, while function does not, necessarily.  So maybe you want to say that our DNA, our hands, our reproductive organs were designed with intent, and purpose, and that to violate the goals of that design is some sort of moral wrong.  But at that point one is speaking theology, and is most definitely not speaking scientifically, or medically - as so often these arguments about "abnormality" or "aberrations", etc are dressed.

But maybe our body parts just have some functions, even if they don't have a purpose or if that purpose is hidden or controversial.  Perhaps you also want to say its an aberration to use our body parts for functions or tasks to which they are not particularly well suited - or perhaps its an aberration when we don't use them in a capacity that utilizes all their features...   but again, who cares? There's no moral component there... or if there is, a better case needs to be made for it, and as of yet, none has.

You unilaterally declaring something a human right does not make it so. Again, please demonstrate the moral imperative.

Are you on record endorsing unqualified egalitarianism or are there limits to what a society should accept?

It seems to me if you claim the former you admit some rather noxious behaviors far and above mere homosexuality. If you claim the latter than you admit there are limits and maybe your claims aren't as sacrosanct after all.

I think perhaps the best way to safeguard rights, is to make sure they are applied to everybody, and can only be restricted for non-arbitrary and justifiable reasons.   If you want to call marriage a "privilege"** - fine, but the same thing applies to those too.   So far, "arbitrary" seems like the absolute perfect word to describe every single argument against same-sex marriage I have ever seen.


** Though I generally think of privileges as things that can be revoked or given, arbitrarily, e.g. Its a privilege to borrow my car, but not a privilege to have a drivers license - that's a right.  Maybe its a privilege to win consent from the person you love for their hand in marriage - but its a right to actually get legally married.

[Eupher]

Okay, wilbur, using your own logic against you, if driving is a right (which it is not under the law, at least in the six states in which I've had a driver's license), are blind people discriminated against because they're not permitted to drive?

Are restrictions placed on a driver (corrective lenses, for example) also worthy of a lawsuit?

This is where your thinking gets tangled up in reality. 

[rubliw]

Okay, wilbur, using your own logic against you, if driving is a right (which it is not under the law, at least in the six states in which I've had a driver's license), are blind people discriminated against because they're not permitted to drive?

Are restrictions placed on a driver (corrective lenses, for example) also worthy of a lawsuit?

This is where your thinking gets tangled up in reality.  

Name one right we have which is not subject to limitation?  There isnt a single one.   Freedom of speech, right to bear arms, etc...  Even the right to life comes with behavior-based caveats.

In the case of driving, there are damn good reasons to disallow blind people from driving - blind people would even agree.  Its a justifiable, non-arbitrary restriction.

[Eupher]

Name one right we have which is not subject to limitation?  There isnt a single one.   Even the right to life comes with behavior-based caveats.

In the case of driving, there are damn good reasons to disallow blind people from driving - blind people would even agree.  Its a justifiable, non-arbitrary restriction.

Wrong. It's not a restriction. Blind people are not permitted to have a driver's license. Period.

What part of that is so hard to understand?

One right that is not subject to limitation is my right to worship -- but since you're either an atheist or agnostic, you wouldn't understand that.

[rubliw]

No driving is not a "right" , it is a privilege. Marriage is a privliege between two people(prefebly man and woman).

For the sake of argument a civil union is also a privilege.
If you were to look at the Bill of Rights, I don't think driving, marital  or civil unions are on that list.

If you feel these are rights, it is a matter of your personal wishful thinking.

Its a little shocking and appalling to see conservatives, of all people, make the mistake of thinking that the Bill of Rights is supposed to be an exhaustive enumeration of all of our rights.  That couldnt be farther from the truth.

[Eupher]

Its a little shocking and appalling to see conservatives, of all people, make the mistake of thinking that the Bill of Rights is supposed to be an exhaustive enumeration of all of our rights.  That couldnt be farther from the truth.

The truth according to wilbur?

Gad. Methinks you have Lunacy perfectly corralled today, if not always. 

[rubliw]

Wrong. It's not a restriction. Blind people are not permitted to have a driver's license. Period.

What part of that is so hard to understand?

One right that is not subject to limitation is my right to worship -- but since you're either an atheist or agnostic, you wouldn't understand that.

Well, at this point I'm sorry by trying to clarify what I meant on the point - because now we're just arguing about definitions, as seems to be so often the case here.   Right or privilege, I don't care.   If you want to call marriage or driving privileges, fine - but that doesn't mean you have the ability to arbitrarily restrict them for any reason you choose.

Marriage - should we be able to arbitrarily restrict it from some types of people from partaking in the institution and not others?!  I say no.   You need good, justifiable reasons for doing so.   And I have never seen a single, good, non-arbitrary reason for denying people of the same gender to marry one another.

[rubliw]

The truth according to wilbur?

Gad. Methinks you have Lunacy perfectly corralled today, if not always.  

So do you then claim that the Bill of Rights is supposed to be an exhaustive list of our rights??!

If so, Alexander Hamilton is weeping in his grave.   

"Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain everything, they have no need of particular reservations."

[Eupher]

Well, at this point I'm sorry by trying to clarify what I meant on the point - because now we're just arguing about definitions, as seems to be so often the case here.   Right or privilege, I don't care.   If you want to call marriage or driving privileges, fine - but that doesn't mean you have the ability to arbitrarily restrict them for any reason you choose.

Marriage - should we be able to arbitrarily restrict it from some types of people from partaking in the institution and not others?!  I say no.   You need good, justifiable reasons for doing so.   And I have never seen a single, good, non-arbitrary reason for denying people of the same gender to marry one another.

And there we have what's called impasse.

wilbur? The door is that way--------------------------------->

Why don't you use it? If you're so tired of arguing definitions, why are you here? (The question is rhetoric.) I think you're here to stir shit on your pet subjects - your homo and rugmunching friends in particular.

[rubliw]

And there we have what's called impasse.

wilbur? The door is that way--------------------------------->

Why don't you use it? If you're so tired of arguing definitions, why are you here? (The question is rhetoric.) I think you're here to stir shit on your pet subjects - your homo and rugmunching friends in particular.

Or maybe I'm here because I like to defend some of my strongly held views and possibly expose myself (and them) to differing arguments. Who knows?  You sure are interested in getting me out of here... sorry you find a contrary opinion so intolerable!   I do find more value, both entertainment and otherwise, from taking my views to places where they *won't* be well received.....    while sometimes its a waste of time, posting in an echo chamber almost *always* is.

[Eupher]

Or maybe I'm here because I like to defend some of my strongly held views and possibly expose myself (and them) to differing arguments. Who knows?  You sure are interested in getting me out of here... sorry you find a contrary opinion so intolerable!   I do find more value, both entertainment and otherwise, from taking my views to places where they *won't* be well received.....    while sometimes its a waste of time, posting in an echo chamber almost *always* is.

Wrong again, wilbur. (You do enjoy being wrong, don't you?)

It's not your views that I find intolerable, wilbur.

It's you.

[rubliw]

Wrong again, wilbur. (You do enjoy being wrong, don't you?)

It's not your views that I find intolerable, wilbur.

It's you.

OK!

[Thor]

Hey Willllllllllllllbuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.......... The Bill of Rights defines what rights the people have in regards to the FEDERAL Government. Perhaps had you not slept through civics class, you'd be able to comprehend that. Under the 10th Amendment, the states are allowed to make their own laws. Got it?? Driving  is NOT a "right". Freedom to travel IS a right.

[rubliw]

Hey Willllllllllllllbuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.......... The Bill of Rights defines what rights the people have in regards to the FEDERAL Government.

It enumerates SOME rights, but in no way defines all or even most of our rights.  See the Ninth amendment.

Perhaps had you not slept through civics class, you'd be able to comprehend that. Under the 10th Amendment, the states are allowed to make their own laws. Got it?? Driving  is NOT a "right". Freedom to travel IS a right.

Well, again - as I said, I don't particularly care what you want to call it.   In the case that you label marriage, or driving, or whatever as a privilege though, it does not mean then, that restrictions can be placed upon those activities at your, (or the gov'ts) arbitrary whim.    In other words, if you're going to deny some people the privilege, you better have a good reason for it.

[seahorse513]

really?? so when the cop pulls you over for a traffic violation, depending on the seriousness, he can arrange thru the court to have your license revoked temporarily, therefore taking away your privilege. If it was a "right" to drive, he couldn't do that.....

[rubliw]

really?? so when the cop pulls you over for a traffic violation, depending on the seriousness, he can arrange thru the court to have your license revoked temporarily, therefore taking away your privilege. If it was a "right" to drive, he couldn't do that.....

Fine - go with that - as long as we all agree that you cannot take away or restrict a persons "privilege" to drive (or to marry) arbitrarily!

In other words,  "Its a privilege, not a right" is not an argument..  it doesn't absolve one from having to justify their position...

[seahorse513]

Fine - go with that - as long as we all agree that you cannot take away or restrict a persons "privilege" to drive (or to marry) arbitrarily!

In other words,  "Its a privilege, not a right" is not an argument..  it doesn't absolve one from having to justify their position...

You are making my head hurt!!!

[Eupher]

You are making my head hurt!!!

This is the circular logic for which wilbur is infamous.

After awhile, even he gets confused.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

The sun is particularly well suited to warm the earth.... but is that its purpose?

Oh I know the basics of anatomy and physiology, and a little bit beyond.  But "purpose" and "function" (ie, a task to which something is particularly well suited) are getting confused here.   Purpose implies intent, while function does not, necessarily.

So you're saying your kidneys can fill-in for your heart it's just that your heart is merely "better suited" for the function of circulating blood.

Got it.

So maybe you want to say that our DNA, our hands, our reproductive organs were designed with intent, and purpose, and that to violate the goals of that design is some sort of moral wrong.

 

I'm making no pretense at a theological argument but maybe you ought to.

Jesus saves. Darwin would just let the queers die out.

But at that point one is speaking theology, and is most definitely not speaking scientifically, or medically - as so often these arguments about "abnormality" or "aberrations", etc are dressed.

OK, so there is no "intent" to human anatomy (absurd on its face).

OK

Then there is no intent to whatever hormonal response that makes one man want to poke another man. Their feelings have no intent and moreover, by their own admission they have no control over it. They may as well be salmon instinctually swimming upstream to spawn...only exclusively with other male salmon.

But maybe our body parts just have some functions, even if they don't have a purpose or if that purpose is hidden or controversial.  Perhaps you also want to say its an aberration to use our body parts for functions or tasks to which they are not particularly well suited - or perhaps its an aberration when we don't use them in a capacity that utilizes all their features...   but again, who cares? There's no moral component there... or if there is, a better case needs to be made for it, and as of yet, none has.

And yet you speak of rights and how I am wrong if I fail to agree.

I think perhaps the best way to safeguard rights, is to make sure they are applied to everybody, and can only be restricted for non-arbitrary and justifiable reasons.

Wow. You have to be one of the most two-face, mealy-mouthed hypocrites cloaked in high-mindedness.

One second you're arguing semantics and grousing about religious overtones disguised in A&P language, then next thing you're doing is arguing what is "justifiable".

Until God be revealed "justifiable" is whatever the **** I say it is or whatever a majority of citizens consents.

If you want to call marriage a "privilege"** - fine, but the same thing applies to those too.   So far, "arbitrary" seems like the absolute perfect word to describe every single argument against same-sex marriage I have ever seen.

** Though I generally think of privileges as things that can be revoked or given, arbitrarily, e.g. Its a privilege to borrow my car, but not a privilege to have a drivers license - that's a right.  Maybe its a privilege to win consent from the person you love for their hand in marriage - but its a right to actually get legally married.

Find me the court of law that says a drivers license is a right.

really?? so when the cop pulls you over for a traffic violation, depending on the seriousness, he can arrange thru the court to have your license revoked temporarily, therefore taking away your privilege. If it was a "right" to drive, he couldn't do that.....

Actually they can go farther by refusing to ever issue a license.

If someone is in the US illegally they have a right to speedy trial, protections against self-incriminations, the right to representative counsel etc.

But they do NOT have a right to a DL. The state can refuse to issue one based solely on their status.

[Rebel]

You lefthanded weirdoes, aberrations all, who shoot lefthanded oughta know that the M16A1 and -A2 offered a Left-Handed Firing Adapter that you'd insert between the carrying handle and the ejection port.   

Some of us are abodiginal. I'm left-handed and golf, bat, and fire right-handed. I can't catch with my right hand to save my life though. You can imagine how hard baseball must have been. Throw with my left, catch with my left. Figure that one out. I have no idea why I didn't make varsity.

[IassaFTots]

Some of us are abodiginal. I'm left-handed and golf, bat, and fire right-handed. I can't catch with my right hand to save my life though. You can imagine how hard baseball must have been. Throw with my left, catch with my left. Figure that one out. I have no idea why I didn't make varsity.

Don't ever try Wii Bowling then.  It wasn't made for the likes of us.