Engaging in

[Guest Aluigi]

oi ve... if you're not prepared to take a position, don't enter into a debate. you propose it's what America was made for. i show you what the constitution says America was made for, and you won't even take a position as to which of these purposes make it made for that. i'm done, not debating with someone who won't clarify their position.

[Socrates]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Nov 20 2004, 06:36 PM'] I could argue that it does. And if I didn't argue that then I'd argue the other thiigns that you mentioned justice etc etc.

Marriage the way it is now isn't promoting welfare either. People will still get married and have kids. I don't even think marraige should be in our government, but if it is I don't mind, but think that it should be equal. justice yo. [/quote]
Dairy, you've still proven nothing but your own ignorance.

Your posts are nothing but disjointed opinions. You have yet to provide a single concrete fact to back up your opinions - no quotes, no sources, nothing. Nada.

You'v' got no facts. You've got no arguments. You've got no game!

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]you're claiming somehow that those points are not now the things our government is supposed to do now?[/quote]

Al, I think you misunderstood me. I am saying that those principles could be applied to granting gay rights as well. You're insisting that they should only be applied to what you want them to be applied to.

Just because my position is not clear doesn't mean you shuld walk away. Your positions are not always very clear either. That's why we discuss these things; to clarify our positions and modify as need be. Are those things that you talk about, are they an and/or? Do you need all of them to be for what the constitution is intended? They don't appear to be wher eyou need all of them to utilize them. Anyway, if you are going to be like iron.. which I assume is why you're doing this.. then I don't mind if you're not in this discussion anyway.

Socrates, you have some points. I like your input. I almost forgot why I started arguing this and started just trying to argue. I concede that saying people should not be allowed to have rights that are against the natural law when the natural law is obvious.

But even though I am against gay activity personally, I don't think that natural law is clear enough to say that for sure. For this reason, I hold the moral of recognizing other's rights above the uncertainty.

I don't really like your tone though in general. Plus specifically given that you aren't showing anything of much relavence either other than opinion either or beyond the type of stuff that I've shown? As I've shown, founding fathers opinions on specifics and what people have thought throughout the last 200 years does not equate to what's right.

edit: or since I think you might go back to constitutionality and what they thought (much like the bible and what early church fathers thouht) : it does not equate to what's constitutional either. as the things they thought have since been determined unconstitutional.

Edited November 21, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Guest Aluigi]

dairy, i gave you the oppurtunity to clarify your position, asked you specific questions. (you had proposed this is what America was made for, I showed you what the constitution said America was made for and then asked you which of these points you think make America made for government recognition of homosexual unions)

i think you need to remember that currently we are debating wether or not the American government should RECOGNIZE homosexual unions.

so which of those points from the Constitution make America made for government promoted homosexual unions?

[dairygirl4u2c]

This is what I said before and so I'll say it again.
[quote]You are reading those are you want to read them. Justice could be what I think. Welfare could be. Liberty. etc etc.[/quote]

I must have made that statement unclear as you thought I was trying to disregard all those points as not relavent. I mean granting gay rights could be applied to justice.. libery.. and any of the ones you apply regular couples' rights to.

[Guest Aluigi]

ok, so you think the government recognizing homosexual unions is how the government establishes justice, promotes the general welfare, and secures the Blessings of Liberty?

debunking liberty (start with the easiest to debunk): this is not a question of whether or not a person is given the right to do anything they want, people can have homosexual relationships if they want to. that liberty (in the american definition of the word) is secure and will not be further secured by the government's recognition of the marriage.

debunking general welfare: you have yet to contest the evidence that we have put forth that homosexual activity is unhealthy, in fact you have stated you are personally against homosexual activity because of that kind of stuff I think. the fact that it is unhealthy shows it is against the general welfare of society

debunking establishing justice: how is it just to give the same amount of recognition to a homosexual couple and a heterosexual couple? homosexual activity is contrary to public welfare, so how can it be justly deserving of the same privledges as heterosexual activity which has not been shown as contrary to public welfare? i submit that such recognition would be injust

[Socrates]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Nov 20 2004, 08:26 PM']


edit: or since I think you might go back to constitutionality and what they thought (much like the bible and what early church fathers thouht) : it does not equate to what's constitutional either. as the things they thought have since been determined unconstitutional. [/quote]
If something is in the Constitution, and this is later changed by others, I would say the changes are indeed "unconstitutional." This is a major problem with modern American law. The Constitution was set up to preserve certain standards of law, and hold the powers of the branches of government in check. If the Constitution can just be changed to whatever people want it to say, the "evolving document" theory, then there is no point in even having a constitution. Liberals have trashed what was originally written in the Constitution, and twisted it beyond recognition. This is a travesty.

However, that is a side point. I realize the Constitution and other founding documents do not address homosexual "marriage" directly, since that abomination is a very recent concept. I was merely proving your claim that "gay rights is what America was made for" is false and absurd. The only things the founding fathers wrote concerning homosexuality show them to be firmly against it, and they recognized and accepted state laws against homosexuality.

The issue is natural law. I think Aluigi is handling this well. Listen to what he says.

[Guest Aluigi]

thanks Socrates.

dairygirl, do you have anything left to say?

[dairygirl4u2c]

If you're going to give the liberty to straight couples to marry but not to homosexuals in a legal recognition then you have not debunked justice. Maybe I'm using liberty wrong I dunno.

[quote]If something is in the Constitution, and this is later changed by others, I would say the changes are indeed "unconstitutional." This is a major problem with modern American law. The Constitution was set up to preserve certain standards of law, and hold the powers of the branches of government in check. If the Constitution can just be changed to whatever people want it to say, the "evolving document" theory, then there is no point in even having a constitution. Liberals have trashed what was originally written in the Constitution, and twisted it beyond recognition. This is a travesty. [/quote]

I am not saying the constitution is evolving. I am saying the laws that stem from them are. They are modified as needed.

[quote]However, that is a side point. I realize the Constitution and other founding documents do not address homosexual "marriage" directly, since that abomination is a very recent concept. I was merely proving your claim that "gay rights is what America was made for" is false and absurd. The only things the founding fathers wrote concerning homosexuality show them to be firmly against it, and they recognized and accepted state laws against homosexuality[/quote]

And this is why I was talking about slavery and woman suffrage. Back in the days of the constitution, even the fathers had slaves and didn't allow women to vote; they thought that those things were right. Since then, those laws of been abolished as unconstitutional. By your logic, the current laws regarding slavery and woman suffrage are unconstitutional.


I think the fact that I don't think that homosexual acts are necessarily unreasonable, as far as natural law to the point of allowing them recognition, is a value judgement. I believe the sincerity of them when they think that it is natrual for them to do that and believe that they could possibly be right. I hold that natural law says that in this kind of situation, you should allow them the dignity and recognition they deserve. If you think otherwise, that is your perogative. If you agree with my assesment about how it's applied to natural law, but go against it for theological reasons, then that's also your perogative.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree unless I'm missing something.

Edited November 21, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Guest Aluigi]

so you're not going to reply to my argument? simply shrug it off and say you don't believe me? counter my arguments or something, come on!

i contend that every single person in the United States has the same "liberty" which is the ability to do whatever one wants in the American definition of the word. this has nothing to do with what the government promotes and/or recognizes. i submit to you that gay people do have the right to marry, using the same argument that has been brought up saying the Church wouldn't have to recognize the marriages etc. etc., guess what? there's religions out there that currently do recognize the marriages. gay people get married in this country, it's a question of whether the government ought to promote and/or recognize marriage. the liberty is secure, now does the government promote it and recognize it? therefore the question moves to is it good for the general welfare? we have consistantly shown that it is not in this thread, and you have yet to show us wrong or even make the claim that we are wrong with some sort of backing.

you have to prove to me either that it is good for the general welfare or that it is just in order to say this is what America was founded for. you have not countered my arguments which say it is injust and bad for the general welfare. if you really want to argue liberty, pick it up, but argue against my point (which is that the "liberty" is secure for people to do what they want and marry who they want. it's a question of what the government ought to promote/recognize)

i look forward to an actual counter argument or some sort of worthy response?

-Pax-

[Socrates]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Nov 21 2004, 06:38 PM'] If you're going to give the liberty to straight couples to marry but not to homosexuals in a legal recognition then you have not debunked justice. Maybe I'm using liberty wrong I dunno.



I am not saying the constitution is evolving. I am saying the laws that stem from them are. They are modified as needed.



And this is why I was talking about slavery and woman suffrage. Back in the days of the constitution, even the fathers had slaves and didn't allow women to vote; they thought that those things were right. Since then, those laws of been abolished as unconstitutional. By your logic, the current laws regarding slavery and woman suffrage are unconstitutional.


I think the fact that I don't think that homosexual acts are necessarily unreasonable, as far as natural law to the point of allowing them recognition, is a value judgement. I believe the sincerity of them when they think that it is natrual for them to do that and believe that they could possibly be right. I hold that natural law says that in this kind of situation, you should allow them the dignity and recognition they deserve. If you think otherwise, that is your perogative. If you agree with my assesment about how it's applied to natural law, but go against it for theological reasons, then that's also your perogative.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree unless I'm missing something. [/quote]
Once more, you have failed to make any argument, other than asserting your own opinion.

You're simply going in circles. At the beginning of the debate, we argued that homosexual "unions" are contrary to the laws of God and nature, and are dangerous and unhealthy to those involved.

To these arguments, you somewhat conceded, but responded that gay marriage is "what America was made for." When I proved this false, you respond by arguing about slavery, etc., but have given no logical reasons why gay "marriage" should receive legal recognition.

Sodomy is a sin and a vice, and does not create new human life as married love can, and does no good for those involved. You yourself compared it to "eating dirt."
It therefore does not deserve "dignity and recognition."

You have failed to provide any positive reasons why gay marriage is in accord with natural law. All you have said, in essence is gay "marriage" should have legal recognition because you and others think it should.

By this logic, anything and everything should have legal recognition.

Dairy, all your arguments with everbody on this site are the same. You assert an opinion, fail to respond to any arguments against it or provide any rational arguments for your own position, then conclude by saying that "we should agree to disagree." Honestly, what is the point or purpose of such "argumentation"?

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]Dairy, all your arguments with everbody on this site are the same. You assert an opinion, fail to respond to any arguments against it or provide any rational arguments for your own position, then conclude by saying that "we should agree to disagree." Honestly, what is the point or purpose of such "argumentation"?[/quote]
If you mean what's the point of being not being rationale, there is none. But I am being rational so that doesn't apply to me.

If you mean what's the point of agreeing to disagree, then you just don't understand basic values. At a certain point, people's have beliefs values or what have you that don't agree with others. If after covering all the arguemnts regarding why one should change and nothing changes, then you should agree to disagree.

Even if I said the sky was blue and you said it was pink, I'd eventually agree to disagree after argumentation was given.

Otherwise you're disagreeing about disagreeing! Well, maybe I could see this? I seriouly need to think about that one.


[quote]You yourself compared it to "eating dirt." [/quote]

I personally am inclined to think that it's not right, but I understand others who think that it's good. I even accept that I might be wrong that it's not right. As such, I hold that natural law says that in this kind of situation, it is a moral imperative to legally recognize other people's morals when it is reasonable. [i] As this is the essense of my argument, please respond to this arguement.[/i]

But first.

Animals do gay acts. Is this natural law? I don't know, but I'd not argue if you said it was. They love each other. I think that they love each other some connections in the natural law.

Now I know what you're going to say as you guys always do. You're going to say that so if people want to marry pigs, we should let them? Of course, as always, I did not say that. I don't think that's reasonable. Yes it's a case by case thing and I know it's not black and white like you like.

[quote]but have given no logical reasons why gay "marriage" should receive legal recognition[/quote]
I think the purpose of marriage is love. You think it's love and creating life. Why should we recognize marriage at all? If we do for one group of people, we should for all.

[quote]Sodomy is a sin and a vice, and does not create new human life as married love can, and does no good for those involved. [/quote]

You're right that objectively it creates new life, but we disagree with the criteria for marriage. It's a fact that they profess to love each other. So beyond that all you're doing is asserting opinions too.

Give me one thing that you are doing that is different than me.

Edited November 22, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Guest Aluigi]

please, i want to continue the discussion of whether it is "what America was made for".. will you adress my argument?

[dairygirl4u2c]

the same arguments could be applied to regular marraige as well al. what would you say if i applied that argument to regular marriage? people would still have kids. they could have the liberty to marry in private.

also when you allow one but not the other then that's not just.

i don't respond as thoroughly to your posts I'm sorry. it seems that you're arguing about things like justice, liberty, and such that are so abstract that they have no real meanings.

if you disagree, then look to philosophies and more practially look to the legal system. laws say do or don't do this in a reasonable manner. Who decides what's reasonable? the exectutive branch. who decides even still what the exectutive decides? the judical system based on the judges. and even they have to interpret each other.

[Guest Aluigi]

what would i say? hmm.. it'd be interesting to see, but all you did was claim you could make the argument not actually made the argument.

i'm arguing why the constitution was made. the government's promotion/ recognition of heterosexual mariage promotes the general welfare. that's the reason for the government- to secure liberty (it is secure, we are using the american definition of liberty letting people do whatever they want). to establish justice, and to promote the general welfare. it's not about using abstract terms, it's about using them the way the founding fathers used them.

so here we go, you've basically admitted to the idea that homosexuality wouldn't be for the general welfare. seeing as i've shown that people can and do marry homosexually, you cannot argue that it would be securing a liberty (the liberty exists.). this is a question of whether the government should recognize/promote a specific action (an action that is allowed, though it is against the general welfare which is why it's not promoted)

America was not made for this. the government has secured the liberty for these people to do whatever they want, but when it's a question of what they should promote, the government should promote that which is good for the general welfare. you have conceded homosexuality is not good for the general welfare of people, so why do you believe America was made for the government to recognize and promote with benefits homosexuality?