The common pro-gay-marriage argument is "Banning homosexuality or limiting the rights of homosexuals is basically discriminating groups of people for who they are." (to quote Redundant) Is this a logical argument?
The main assertion here is that it is wrong to discriminate between people based on who they are.
Of course, we can all agree that discrimination is fine, for example we put criminals in jail, can we apply the same argument to jailed criminals? Well, Redundant specifically says "Homosexuals do not harm others by being who they are" - that is, they aren't an intrinsic threat. Jailed criminals are assumably a threat in some way, maybe they didn't pay parking fines, maybe they abused their children, maybe they were jailed for insider trading. These are things that we have recognise as wrong. But why do criminals do these criminal things?
Modern theory indicates that biology and social factors both play a role to some degree.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/20/ar...anted=all&_r=0
http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/...f/tandi263.pdf
I won't bore you with spammed links, but there is a general consensus that you can have a genetic disposition to being a criminal, but that social factors (whether economic, geographic, your family, your community, etc) are important too.
So ignoring the "do not harm others" clause, we say that some people are criminals in the same way that some people are homosexuals? Is it right to limit their rights?
Currently sexuality is seen as a product of biological, hormonal and social factors. So are mental illness or genetic disorders? Are we wrong to give them drugs, treatment, maybe even isolation and special treatment?
If we are to accept the argument that "Banning homosexuality or limiting the rights of homosexuals is basically discriminating groups of people for who they are." should we accept it for all other similar situations?
Why is it OK to discriminate if someone has caused harm to others (or their property, more commonly), but not if they have not? Do homosexuals really not cause harm to others? Considering the constant unrest that has been caused in many countries as a result of their collective actions (aka not caused intrinsicly by their existence, but because of their political actions or otherwise), is it a fair assessment to say they do not cause harm?
The main assertion here is that it is wrong to discriminate between people based on who they are.
Of course, we can all agree that discrimination is fine, for example we put criminals in jail, can we apply the same argument to jailed criminals? Well, Redundant specifically says "Homosexuals do not harm others by being who they are" - that is, they aren't an intrinsic threat. Jailed criminals are assumably a threat in some way, maybe they didn't pay parking fines, maybe they abused their children, maybe they were jailed for insider trading. These are things that we have recognise as wrong. But why do criminals do these criminal things?
Modern theory indicates that biology and social factors both play a role to some degree.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/20/ar...anted=all&_r=0
http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/...f/tandi263.pdf
I won't bore you with spammed links, but there is a general consensus that you can have a genetic disposition to being a criminal, but that social factors (whether economic, geographic, your family, your community, etc) are important too.
So ignoring the "do not harm others" clause, we say that some people are criminals in the same way that some people are homosexuals? Is it right to limit their rights?
Currently sexuality is seen as a product of biological, hormonal and social factors. So are mental illness or genetic disorders? Are we wrong to give them drugs, treatment, maybe even isolation and special treatment?
If we are to accept the argument that "Banning homosexuality or limiting the rights of homosexuals is basically discriminating groups of people for who they are." should we accept it for all other similar situations?
Why is it OK to discriminate if someone has caused harm to others (or their property, more commonly), but not if they have not? Do homosexuals really not cause harm to others? Considering the constant unrest that has been caused in many countries as a result of their collective actions (aka not caused intrinsicly by their existence, but because of their political actions or otherwise), is it a fair assessment to say they do not cause harm?
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
I apologise if this is seen as a pointless post, but I think this picture speaks volumes.
I think anybody who opposes gay marriage for any reason other than 'derp, I'm a bigot' will one day realise that the only reason it's 'wrong' is because they've spent their whole lives surrounded by other bigoted people who also say it's 'wrong' without any rational justification. Exactly the same as the attitude towards black people before the Civil Rights Movement.
One day we will conquer your wall of hate and it will be glorious.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
Why is it OK to discriminate if someone has caused harm to others (or their property, more commonly), but not if they have not? Do homosexuals really not cause harm to others? Considering the constant unrest that has been caused in many countries as a result of their collective actions (aka not caused intrinsicly by their existence, but because of their political actions or otherwise), is it a fair assessment to say they do not cause harm?
I'm hoping you said that as food for discussion rather than it representing your true opinion? Do you agree with the killing of millions of Jews during the holocaust? I mean, they did not cause harm to others, but there involvement as fire-wood in the holocaust certainly caused unrest in many countries.
No? Of course not, because it was the Nazis' fault, not the Jews'. Similarly all the 'unrest' around gay marriage is the fault of crusty old men and brainwashed young people, not of the gay population.
Last edited by Moop; Feb 16, 2015 at 02:50 PM.
one time i had a hair deep in my urethra and when i pulled it out it felt kinda good ~fudgiebalz 2020
<~Skul> they're not children, they're demon midgets
<~Skul> if you kill one in front of the rest, they'll scatter and leave
Originally Posted by Ele
Marriage is, however, a legal institution. Most Western countries have the church/state split codified into their constitutions. That being the case, we can force it change - it isn't a sacred Christian privilege. Originally, homosexuality wasn't morally OK when the marriage acts were written. Over time, our morals changed and now it's more socially acceptable. There's always a lag between what society deems OK and what the law deems OK, and that's where we're at right now.
I realised that this might be the case while writing my post but couldn't be bothered to check. While thinking it is unreasonable to claim the homosexuals should not have the right to marry, and now realising that marriage did not originate from the church, as I had previously believed, I do not believe that churches should be forced to carry out ceremonies for homosexual marriage since this is not the basis of such a ceremony.
And pig, I admire you courage to try to use a controversial argument on such an emotionally charged topic, but it does not look into medical practices when it comes to medicating the neurologically ill enough to be very convincing. 6/10
-----
If you intend to educate yourself on the matter then I will have linked a couple of articles and essays below.
|Essay including history of legal cases.|Article with arguments for and against.|This looks like legal documentation but it might just be a history or essay about the law on such matters, I no idea.|
Last edited by Zelda; Feb 16, 2015 at 03:24 PM.
Reason: <24 hour edit/bump
Good morning sweet princess
Originally Posted by Moop
I apologise if this is seen as a pointless post, but I think this picture speaks volumes.
I think anybody who opposes gay marriage for any reason other than 'derp, I'm a bigot' will one day realise that the only reason it's 'wrong' is because they've spent their whole lives surrounded by other bigoted people who also say it's 'wrong' without any rational justification. Exactly the same as the attitude towards black people before the Civil Rights Movement.
One day we will conquer your wall of hate and it will be glorious.
(Just imagine the caption to being "how stupid are you going to look in 40 years", I'm not going to photo edit)
I apologise if this is seen as a pointless post, but I think this picture speaks volumes.
I think anybody who opposes gay marriage for any reason other than 'derp, I'm a social marxist' will one day realise that the only reason it's 'right' is because they've spent their whole lives surrounded by other social marxists people who also say it's 'right' without any rational justification. Exactly the same as the attitude towards black people before the Civil Rights Movement.
One day we will conquer your wall of delusion and it will be glorious.
Originally Posted by Moop
I'm hoping you said that as food for discussion rather than it representing your true opinion? Do you agree with the killing of millions of Jews during the holocaust? I mean, they did not cause harm to others, but there involvement as fire-wood in the holocaust certainly caused unrest in many countries.
No? Of course not, because it was the Nazis' fault, not the Jews'. Similarly all the 'unrest' around gay marriage is the fault of crusty old men and brainwashed young people, not of the gay population.
Right, I'm literally Hitler for disagreeing with you. You assert a lot but don't give any logic or evidence for anything, ignore the argument of other people, and are quick to flame and even enact Godwin's law. You'll make a fine lmod one day.
On a sidenote, Jewish bolsheviks are one of the factors that caused WW2. So are Jews at fault for their existence? No. But some Jews certainly were at fault. That's a discussion for another day, but if you are going to use a Nazi analogy at least know history.
-----
Originally Posted by protonitron
And pig, I admire you courage to try to use a controversial argument on such an emotionally charged topic, but it does not look into medical practices when it comes to medicating the neurologically ill enough to be very convincing. 6/10
I don't think it's necessary to go into any more depth.
Just because someone has, for example ADD they are treated differently, sent to specialists or to a special school/class, and even given medication. Should we not just accept them for who they are?
Last edited by ImmortalPig; Feb 16, 2015 at 03:39 PM.
Reason: <24 hour edit/bump
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
I'm going to say right now that some of the American Pride Parades are kind of going overboard.
Some of them are walking up and down naked on a really popular road.
I'm fine with gay marriage and what they stand for but it's how they stand for it (in some cases) that I just don't get. Since it's not everyone that does this it's fine, there are good people that are proving their point and using simple costumes and signs whereas their are also bad ones, such as the image ImmortalPig linked.
This doesn't mean that there isn't cruel ways people have tried to say that gay marriage is wrong.
Some of them are walking up and down naked on a really popular road.
I'm fine with gay marriage and what they stand for but it's how they stand for it (in some cases) that I just don't get. Since it's not everyone that does this it's fine, there are good people that are proving their point and using simple costumes and signs whereas their are also bad ones, such as the image ImmortalPig linked.
This doesn't mean that there isn't cruel ways people have tried to say that gay marriage is wrong.
Last edited by Ele; Feb 16, 2015 at 04:02 PM.
Reason: No more goddamn pictures, guys
Life's not a waste of time and time's not a waste of life so let's stop wasting time, get wasted and have the time of our lives - Mr Worldwide 3:18
