10 months ago
Which side makes a better case?
avatar
33 Comments
  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • 10 months ago

    If it's true that being LGBT+ is a mental disorder, and that's the reason that we can't ask for legal rights,
    Does that also mean that people with other mental health issues shouldn't be given legal rights, and should also be hidden away from society?

    • 10 months ago

      @jb043 I'm saying that marriage rights should not be given. You'll have all other rights as normal

    • 10 months ago

      @mani_bharathy point still stands - should people with an intellectual disability not be permitted to marry?

    • 10 months ago

      @jb043 they can be permitted to marry. but that is a special case and an unfortunate case (being disabled). In that case i can cut some slack for the disabled ppl and say they can marry. But i wont say that normal ppl can have a gay marriage because it has no societal purpose

    • 10 months ago

      @mani_bharathy okay what about infertile couples? That has no ‘societal’ purpose so are they also not allowed to marry?

    • 10 months ago

      @jb043 Again that is a special case and an unfortunate case. Since they CANT do anything about it, its fine. Eventhough they cant have kids they can still have SEX. so they can marry.

  • 10 months ago

    @behind_the_veil_of_ignorance I kinda wish I had taken this now ahahah

    • 10 months ago

      @behind_the_veil_of_ignorance I have to go for breakfast. Can we have the part 2 after an hour or so?

      • 10 months ago

        @mani_bharathy you're smarter than this. This is nonsense. Nobody thinks that the only reason for a relationship/marriage is babies. Nobody. So your only affirmative reason to believe LGBT's have a delusion is false. Moreover, science, history, and countless other animal species affirm the fact that homosexuality is perfectly natural, just slightly less common than heterosexuality.

        The only other argument you have is this slippery slope of "well homosexuality and my grandfather being attracted to his bed are the same thing." Except that they're not. As @behind_the_veil_of_ignorance said, the other party would have to have agency and the ability to reciprocate. The bed does not. There's no legal reason to offer recognition to that union when the bed cannot consent. Same with a computer, same with a dog.

        Also I love that Joel made all the same responses I made in the comment thread with you yesterday. His answer on incest is perfectly reasonable. All of your "but what about these other weird types of relationship?" points aren't actually reasons to disapprove of homosexuality, since you didn't even prove those relationships should be illegal. You need to give a warrant besides "it's icky to me". Being icky =/= therefore it should be illegal. You didn't give a single reason outside of "marriage is for making babies" which is a silly reason that nobody believes.

        Edit: I don't mean to be too harsh. I do think you're a smart guy, I just think there's a bit of a breakdown in logic on this one.

        • 10 months ago

          @sharkb8

          "you're smarter than this. This is nonsense."

          May be I didn't put up good points (because its difficult to explain since i believe many of us are already strongly biased towards the acceptance of LGBT). But what I'm saying is not nonsense. I'll try to make better points in part 2.

          "Nobody thinks that the only reason for a relationship/marriage is babies."

          I never said 'babies' are the ONLY reason. It's one of the major reason.

          "So your only affirmative reason to believe LGBT's have a delusion is false."
          I dont know how do you come to that conclusion.

          "Moreover, science, history, and countless other animal species affirm the fact that homosexuality is perfectly natural, just slightly less common than heterosexuality."

          Science is still divided in this issue. There are studies that says homosexuality is a mental disorder and there are some that's not.
          Comparing with animals is a bit trickier. Because animals don't have the concept of marriage and they are polygamous but we are not. And most importantly we are rational and they are not. May be you can say its natural among animals. I agree its natural but delusion isn't unnatural. For eg: 1 in 1000 babies born with six fingers in a hand, thats natural but still the baby is abnormal. Something can be natural and abnormal. Does it make sense?

          "the other party would have to have agency and the ability to reciprocate. The bed does not. There's no legal reason to offer recognition to that union when the bed cannot consent. Same with a computer, same with a dog."

          Why is it necessary for the other party to reciprocate? Even if that is the case , my dog reciprocates love. My computer does show love in its own way by working for me. Why is consent important, that too particularly for non-living things and pets (as long as i'm not mistreating my pet).

          "You need to give a warrant besides "it's icky to me". Being icky =/= therefore it should be illegal."

          Okay my warrant is that LGBT is illogical/ unreasonable/ unjustifiable/ meaningless / useless.
          What is the one logical reason you can give me for me to accept LGB( I will come to T later) socially?

          "You didn't give a single reason outside of "marriage is for making babies" which is a silly reason that nobody believes."

          Its not a totally silly reason. Most people who marry have kids. so having kids is arguably one of the main reasons of marriage

        • 10 months ago

          @mani_bharathy "Most" people who marry have kids, but not all of them. It's a potential use for a relationship, but it's not a defining characteristic that makes the relationship "logical" or "illogical".

          Joel is correct that numerous society's throughout history featured homosexuality. And no, science has been settled on this issue for nearly 50 years. Homosexuality was removed as a mental disorder from the DSM in 1973, and has not been considered a mental disorder since. You're 50 years behind the times my friend ;).

          That's what makes your position so ludicrous. You're arguing against established science with a position that defies history and the consensus opinion of the scientific body. And your only reason to think you know better than the most comprehensive scientific text on the issue is "but gay people can't have babies". Yeah well neither can sterile people, or ladies older than 50, or people who use birth control, but all of those are still legitimate marriages, because the definition of marriage is not "babymaking union". It's a partnership between two consenting adults to foster long term satisfaction/love between the two.

          Homosexuality might be less normal than heterosexuality, but so is attraction to girls with dark skin. Is an interracial union bad? No it's not. It's just personal, natural attraction, and if the two parties agree, it's can create a beautiful union. Abnormal =/= Delusional.

          It's necessary for the other party to reciprocate because otherwise it isn't something society should accept. Rape is not marriage. Child sex is not marriage. Bird fucking is not marriage. None of those actions involve consent. Neither society nor law should accept marriages that do not involve consent.

          What is the advantage of LGBT unions? Literally the exact same advantage as heterosexual unions.
          1. Love
          2. Tax benefits
          3. Two partners to raise a child (LGBT couples can adopt)
          4. Longer Life (married couples live longer)
          5. Less chance of depression (marriage has been linked to increased seratonin levels)
          Bonus: Also, if you're the right age and gender and you time your sex correctly, you could potentially have a baby.

          The bonus advantage might not be there for homosexual couples, but they get everything else. If your standard for a union is that you have to have babies, then you're saying only women under 50 can get married. You're saying that no couple who is sterile can get married. You're saying no couple who wants to use contraception can get married. In other words, your definition is ridiculous. Nobody thinks that's the definition of marriage, nor should they.

        • 10 months ago

          @sharkb8 Lol, great minds think alike? I didn't actually see the thread, so don't think I'm jacking your arguments.

        • 10 months ago

          @behind_the_veil_of_ignorance haha I didn't think you were, but it was funny cuz he asked me all the same things about incest and stick love and I basically responded the same way as you.

        • 10 months ago

          @sharkb8

          "What is the advantage of LGBT unions? Literally the exact same advantage as heterosexual unions.
          1. Love
          2. Tax benefits
          3. Two partners to raise a child (LGBT couples can adopt)
          4. Longer Life (married couples live longer)
          5. Less chance of depression (marriage has been linked to increased seratonin levels)"

          If thats what you believe, then polygamy marriage and incest marriage provides all those things . Do you welcom polygamy and incest too? You didn't welcome those as I recall from our fb comments

          @behind_the_veil_of_ignorance is okay with polygamy and incest marriage. If that is what is your stand also then my question is,

          By legalizing LGBT marriage you have discriminated against the polygamy and incest people. Why is that?

          By bringing a law that says, "LGBT people can marry legally but polygamy/incest ppl cannot" aren't you being irrational ?

          That law looks to me something like "White children can go to school, but black chilren cannot go to school"

        • 10 months ago

          @sharkb8 @behind_the_veil_of_ignorance

          Definition of marriage as per "Code of Laws of the United States" :

          §7. Definition of "marriage" and "spouse"
          In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word "marriage" means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word "spouse" refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

          (Added Pub. L. 104–199, §3(a), Sept. 21, 1996, 110 Stat. 2419 .)

          http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=spouse&f=treesort&fq=true&num=1&hl=true&edition=prelim&granuleId=USC-prelim-title1-section7

          Do you guys want to amend this code?

          If yes how do you want to amend?

        • 10 months ago

          @mani_bharathy I am ok with polygamy absolutely. That’s certainly the most logical answer. Our bodies obviously desire more than one partner. The fact that we already have sex with more than one partner before marriage means we already basically have polygamy.

          Incest I would be ok with but I would add the stipulation that both parties must have lived away from each other for a period of 5+ years, to prevent against potential abuse or brainwashing, and that reproduction from such a union is strictly forbidden.

          Yes the code is based on outdated language and should be altered to fit with modern science.

        • 10 months ago

          @sharkb8
          "Yes the code is based on outdated language and should be altered to fit with modern science."

          I have 2 responses.

          1) Science (in homosexuality , in general psychology and neuroscience) is not well defined (or ill quipped) to give you the right direction in this. We can have a seperate debate on this one itself

          2) How would you want to amend the code so that it makes better sense than it is now?

        • 10 months ago

          @mani_bharathy
          “In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word "marriage" means a legal union between consenting adults, and the word "spouse" refers to one’s opposite partner, who could be either husband or wife.”

          All of the advantages of marriage still exist, and are further improved for the couples who can now get married. Simple.

        • 10 months ago

          @sharkb8 With that change, now you are discriminating against children of their right to marriage. Is it so?

          Most of the states' laws allow child marriage

        • 10 months ago

          @sharkb8 what if I amend like this

          “In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word "marriage" means a legal union between consenting ENTITIES, and the word "spouse" refers to one’s opposite partner, who could be either husband or wife.”

          would you accept this

        • 10 months ago

          @mani_bharathy children can’t consent. Their minds aren’t capable of entering into such a contractual relationship and it would be far too open to abuse to make it so. And no, in the US, child marriage isn’t legal, nor would I let it be. There are some exceptions to the rule, but they should remain as exceptions only.

          And it shouldn’t be consenting entities. Only humans can engage in a human relationship. Any other species does not have the mental capacity or method of communication to consent.

        • 10 months ago

          @sharkb8

          "And no, in the US, child marriage isn’t legal"

          In 49 states except Delaware, child marriage is totally legal with special reasons like parental consent, pregnancy etc.

          Just google 'child marriage in us'. Lots of articles
          For one, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_marriage_in_the_United_States

          I'm not able to pull up Code of Law because it all comes under state law

          "children can’t consent. Their minds aren’t capable of entering into such a contractual relationship and it would be far too open to abuse to make it so."

          Does science approve this statement? Did science say that children change into adult on their 18th birthday?

        • 10 months ago

          @mani_bharathy exceptions to the rule are acceptable. But they should remain as exceptions.

          The age of consent is rather arbitrary I agree, but it is clear that young persons do not have the same mental or sexual maturity that adults have. We put a number at 18 for practical purposes, and it isn’t necessarily accurate, but it is good to have a number somewhere.

          It should also be pointed out that 18 is a good number to use because it’s the age at which one obtains the right to vote and be considered legally emancipated. Before that age, a child needs parental consent for most activities. After 18 society considers them capable of making their own choices. Marriage would be such a choice.

        • 10 months ago

          @sharkb8 "exceptions to the rule are acceptable. But they should remain as exceptions"

          So if a parent wants their child to marry is it cool?

          Then your law amendment "...consenting adults. ..." is not saying that. You might want to redefine it.

        • 10 months ago

          @mani_bharathy no I don’t want to amend it. If extenuating circumstances make a child marriage necessary, it can be an exception to the rule, but it absolutely should not be part of the rule.

          And parental consent would be needed, but it would also need extenuating circumstances like maybe a 16 year old got pregnant with her 18 year old boyfriend. With parental consent to the union it might be acceptable. But such instances would be the exception, not the rule.

        • 10 months ago

          @sharkb8

          "no I don’t want to amend it. If extenuating circumstances make a child marriage necessary, it can be an exception to the rule, but it absolutely should not be part of the rule."

          As of I know, there is no exception to law, there is only violation of law.
          May be I'm wrong. You might know these things better since you worked in a law firm.

          If you want children to get married then your definition of marriage should accomodate that.

      • 10 months ago

        Private contracts, marriage is.

      • 10 months ago

        Automatic con win. Question to start with is a loaded question so pro is invalid since pro came up with it.