Engaging in

[Socrates]

Unfortunately I am very busy today and don't really have time to give much of a response, but . . .

As to burnspivey, or whoever it was that said abortion had "grand history" of being legal - it's only been legal since 1973 - America's been around since 1776 - It was not legal for almost 200 years! Legal abortion and demand for same-sex marriage are evidence of the corruption of America's morals, and the slippery-slope arguments are quite valid - if no one can "impose morals" then anything goes - There are pedophile rights and bestiality rights groups out there.

The racism comparisons are bogus - as I've said -we're against legal recognition of a particular action, not a race of person. Homosexuals have just as much right as anyone to vote, work, own property, and to marry. . .a person of the opposite sex!
Same-sex unions are not marriages and should not be legally recognized as such.

As you've admitted, homosexual practices carry much higher risks of diseases (which of course are not exclusive to gays, but are also a good argument against similar practices in "straight" people - levels of such diseases are much lower in monagamously married couples.)
Sodomy does not lead to the creation of human life, but helps destroy it.

You people keep saying it is "good," but what is good about it - it's affects are negative, especially to those who practice them.

As for gay marriage, children need a mother and a father, not daddy and his roomate!

Stop imposing your immorality on us!

[Socrates]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Nov 22 2004, 06:09 PM']
soc left when I showed him how he's not doing anything different than I am. I think I got him with the slavery and the woman's suffrage thing or else I bet he'd be here arguing that if the father's thought it was constitutional, then it must be.

[/quote]
That's baloney - You've still proved nothing at all, Dairy - I've been busy with other things + haven't had time to post on phatmass - had nothing to do with your "arguments."

[Guest Aluigi]

anti-abortion laws cam about at the turn of the 20th century, before then it was a very uncommon practice, could barely even be done safely. you know who championed anti-abortion laws? THE FEMINISTS! Susan B. Anthony called it "infanticide". It was men who led the fight to make it legal then.

then the feminist movement got hijacked by chauvenists who wanted to use women as mere objects, they became pro-abortion, and in 1973 it became legal for them to kill their babies forever liberating men from the responsibilities of fatherhood.

[Guest Aluigi]

[url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=23117&view=findpost&p=426266"]http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showt...ndpost&p=426266[/url] is still my last point to dairy. i would look forward to your response, not sirmystiqs #1 i'm not satisfied with it #2 i wanna know what YOU think about my points

Edited November 23, 2004 by Aluigi

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]That's baloney - You've still proved nothing at all, Dairy - I've been busy with other things + haven't had time to post on phatmass - had nothing to do with your "arguments." [/quote]

I make the point that all you offer isn't anything more than I do. Please respond to this how it's different. Enlighten me. again please respond with more than I am not making any arguments. (I certainl laid down the slavery and voting stuff and you responded with nothing.. it seems you are the one with "arguement" or actually the lack thereof.

Anyone can respond to this argument that soc says he has.

[quote]I propose that everyone is currently treated equally, no person will be granted recognition for marrying a member of the same sex (gay or strait doesn't matter). The government treats everyone the same. If you disagree, show me the government treating people differently and show me how that better fits this value premise of justice. If not, i suggest you move on to the value premise of general welfare, which is where i always thought this argument was going to crystalize anyway (because this proposed policy does not relate well to justice/liberty seeing as the justice and liberty are already secure for all these people)[/quote]

I'm not saying your wrong for having an interpretation. I do think your interpretation is wrong but I accept that you ahve a different one and respect it. I am saying that what you are trying to argue cannot be argued beyond what we have established. You've said your part and I've said mine. There's nothing we can do here it looks like. Abe, those two preople who argued values argued with the idea that they could win. I hope we're all aware enought that you can't win value arguements unless one is being inconsistent.I know what you think about all that and you what I do. I said what I wanted to say yet you brushed aside my welfare argument. You brushed aside my justice arguemnt because you say that they are treated fairly?

So here's the case and please respond.
I say we recognize homo marriage and not hetero. Now all the arguments that you give to me I will give back to you.

And tell me, how is recognizing hetero sexual marriage doing all that stuff promoting ibery, justice, welfare? Please respond to this and each of them.


[quote]To me and many other people homosexuality is as reasonable as pedophilia. [/quote]

This is really the only thing worth responding to as the other one is worn out. Homosexuality and pedophilia are completely different. The first is between consenting ADULTS. The second may be consentual but it's not between adults. Please respond to this.


I don't concede that it causes health problems. If I did, then I concede that I should not have conceded. Please demonstrate the health problems that are associated with gays that is not for heteros. Please respond to this.

Personally I 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. As this is the essense of my argument, please respond to this arguement.

[Guest Aluigi]

you realize it CAN be argued beyond this, i'm trying to push you to a deeper level of thinking about the topic. values are debated all the time, Lincold-Douglas debates are a big thing in the debate world. it can be debated, you are not debating it. if you think i'm wrong, tell me why. don't just say you accept what i've said and think i'm wrong but won't tell me why. this is a DEBATE TABLE, if you're not going to debate my points but just keep insisting with each post that we end debate and agree to disagree, i say don't even post here at all because you don't come with the intention to debate.

you cannot throw the same arguments back at me. i have provided statistics and medical studies about the idea that homosexuality does not adhere to promoting the general welfare. you have not responded to these, nor have you provided any evidence that hetero marriage is contrary to the general welfare. if you wanted to throw all my arguments back at me, first you'd have to refute my assertion that it is contrary to the general welfare (something you are unwilling to take a stance one way or the other on but merely say you're inclined to think it's contrary to the general welfare but you could be wrong) then you'd have to provide some evidence that heterosexual marriage is contrary to the general welfare. only with such arguments would your credibility with a stance that heterosexual marriages shouldn't be allowed but homosexual marriages should. i will concede you can throw back the justice and liberty arguments, but that is because those arguments are me proving that the question of this policy does not apply to those values. i would concede those two, and crystallize the debate on general welfare just like i am doing now.

recognizing heterosexual marriage is not a question of liberty or justice as they are reasons for the existance of the government. it is a question of promoting the general welfare, promoting families and unity (see the same artical about the Dutch study on "adultery" in homosexual unions as opposed to adultery in heterosexual unions)

regarding pedophilia, what do you define as an adult? this could simply be cultural, in other times people were adults at 13, nowadays it's 18.. i know and you know there are legitimate arguments against it, and i will concede pedophilia is more outrageous than homosexuality, but they are still both outrageous. you wanna take away the requirement that they be male and female, NAMBLA wants to take away the requirement that they are both adults. you're both knocking down pillars.

i want to purge this debate of all the petty arguments about debate styles, your accusations to people like socrates and cmom as well as perhaps socrates's criticism of your debate style. let's focus on the issue; i am proposing a value premise, that the government ought to promote the general welfare as the constitution says. i have made my arguments that liberty and justice do not apply (i did not simply brush your arguments aside, i addressed your points). if you wish to argue that they do, by all means refute my arguments. if not, then you must clash with me about general welfare to maintain a position contrary to my own.

here's a tip, don't take points of clash and say "let's agree to disagree".. that's not what a debate table is about. also: do not take points of clash and say "i can't be sure, it could go either way" you're only hurting the integrity of the debate. you can ask me to provide more arguments for my side of something you're not sure about, and then go out and do your own research and come to a position you're willing to stand by, but don't mush the clash, we need to clash to get deeper and deeper into our disagreement. it is not impossible to solve such debates, it can be hard, but not impossible. it will be impossible if you keep saying it is impossible and not adressing my points.

[color=#FF0000]now, focus on my points please. i am going to repeat and clarify everything for you:
If the government adopted the policy of recognizing and promoting with benefits same sex unions, it would not promote the general welfare, rather be detrimental to it. Promoting the general welfare is a purpose of the United States Government laid out in the Preamble to the Constitution.[list]support:
[*][url="http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20030711-121254-3711r.htm"]Dutch Study on Same Sex Unions[/url]
[*][url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=23117&view=findpost&p=425912"]Medical Evidence laid out in the quote section of this post[/url]
[/list]The other values in the constitution that could possibly be considered are securing the Blessings of Liberty and establishing justice. However, seeing as people already hold the liberty to do whatever they want and the protection of this "right" exists, this policy is simply the government's recognition and promotion of this activity which is allowed. This leaves the value must be what the government is supposed to promote: the general welfare.[/color]

I'm being repetitive, yes. But I wan't you to address my arguments. They can be argued, value based debates exist and are very successful.

[Socrates]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Nov 22 2004, 11:02 PM']
I make the point that all you offer isn't anything more than I do. Please respond to this how it's different. Enlighten me. again please respond with more than I am not making any arguments. (I certainl laid down the slavery and voting stuff and you responded with nothing.. it seems you are the one with "arguement" or actually the lack thereof.

Anyone can respond to this argument that soc says he has.



[/quote]
Do I have have to keep repeating the same thing over and over?
Marriage has always (throughout human history) been about procreating and raising children. It has never been about sodomy, which does not deserve to be "dignified" with legal recognition and benfits.

Go back to my orginal posts on this thread for my arguments for why "gay marriage" is wrong.

And your examples of slavery and women's suffrage are entirely unrelated to the gay marriage issue.

The fact that there was slavery, etc. in the past has nothing to do with whether same-sex "marriage" is something that is good and should be recognized. It is irrelevant. Gay people can vote and they are not slaves.

I'm not arguing that the founding fathers are infallible on everything, just that "gay rights" is not "what America is made for," your silly last-resort argument.

If you want to argue, get back to the subject. Otherwise, this is pointless.

You need to answer the arguments, not change the subject with irrelevant material.

[Don John of Austria]

okay first of all I mean this seriously as Catholics why do we care weather or notthe state recognizes homosexual marraige --- the State doesn't have the authority to administer marriage anyway --- no marriage can be made by the State they cannot marry a man and a women who have no impedements so who cares what they say about homosexual marriage. Now if it is paying for homosexual unions that bothers you well then thts what we should be discussing NOT marriage.

[Guest Aluigi]

you of all people should recognize the duty of Catholics to work to make their government adhere to true morality as closely as possible i would think. it's about the government recognizing it and promoting it through benefits. that's what it would be for the government to sanction same sex unions-- they would be promoting in two ways: 1) by recognizing them as legitimate and 2) by giving them by giving them benefits

Of course Catholics should be concerned about this. i know you wanna just scrap the whole government and go back to the feudal monarchy , but so long as the government exists like this we should participate and make it as good as possible. we are discussing the state's recognition and distribution of marriage-like benefits to same sex unions, something i define as a promotion of same sex unions.

Edited November 23, 2004 by Aluigi

[Oik]

While Don has a point, Aluigi has a point.

My point, eleven states passed amendments to ban it!

ELEVEN! IN ONE ELECTION!

Ya'll, that's a lot.

My beef here, people who claim homosexual identity and people who support them want the people to decide.

Let them decide, looks like to country is split to me.

Furthrtmore, if you allow states to recognize homosexual unions, then you have to allow states to ban them, oh wait, President Clinton already signed an Act in 1996, the Denfese of Marriage Act, and it says that the government nor any state is required to recognize any other marriage besides between one man and one woman.

If the government is to decide, the people have to be united.
If the states are to decide, then there will not be unity.
The US is 23 percent Catholic and around 60 Christian. I don't see an amendment support homosexual "rights" anytime soon.

[Guest Aluigi]

[quote name='Aluigi' date='Nov 22 2004, 11:46 PM'] [color=#FF0000]now, focus on my points please. i am going to repeat and clarify everything for you:
If the government adopted the policy of recognizing and promoting with benefits same sex unions, it would not promote the general welfare, rather be detrimental to it. Promoting the general welfare is a purpose of the United States Government laid out in the Preamble to the Constitution.[list]support:
[*][url="http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20030711-121254-3711r.htm"]Dutch Study on Same Sex Unions[/url]
[*][url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=23117&view=findpost&p=425912"]Medical Evidence laid out in the quote section of this post[/url]
[/list]The other values in the constitution that could possibly be considered are securing the Blessings of Liberty and establishing justice. However, seeing as people already hold the liberty to do whatever they want and the protection of this "right" exists, this policy is simply the government's recognition and promotion of this activity which is allowed. This leaves the value must be what the government is supposed to promote: the general welfare.[/color]

I'm being repetitive, yes. But I wan't you to address my arguments. They can be argued, value based debates exist and are very successful. [/quote]
i really don't wanna get sidetracked in my debate with dairy.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Nov 22 2004, 11:35 PM'] okay first of all I mean this seriously as Catholics why do we care weather or notthe state recognizes homosexual marraige --- the State doesn't have the authority to administer marriage anyway --- no marriage can be made by the State they cannot marry a man and a women who have no impedements so who cares what they say about homosexual marriage. Now if it is paying for homosexual unions that bothers you well then thts what we should be discussing NOT marriage. [/quote]
Actually, according to St. Thomas it would be unjust for us to have a law that allows homosexual marriages because it's against Natural Law.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]And your examples of slavery and women's suffrage are entirely unrelated to the gay marriage issue.[/quote]

You were the one that was saying that.. well the father's thought it was okay to hve slavery and not let women vote. Go back and look please. Well okay here ya go.

[quote]And Thomas Jefferson, a founding father of our country, and not a particulary religious man, recommended as Governor of Virginia that sodomites be punished by castration! (a common punishment for sex offenders at the time)
(So much for gay rights being what our country was founded on!)

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]


That seems to be your last resort argument, and I fully showed how that was not the case. Even if it was not your last resort argument, it was an argument nonetheless and it would be big of you to admit that it was not a good one. right? im mean to say that they thought it so it must be okay argument that you used.

They are related because I think gay marriage is good and not having slavery is good. You onlythink they're irrelevant because you think gay marraige is bad. Which leads to your other arguments.

Your other arguments are about "it's the standard that this is sin, therefore it's wrong". These are just value statements, you cannot back them up. I can say it doesn't matter what pepole think just like it doesn't matter what he presidents thought about things like slavery and women voting. Two things I would say to you though. One, animals do it.. doesn't make it right.. but at least it's natural. I think that I've heard of monogamous stratigh animals.. I suppose I've never seen any monogamous gay animals! But they do mess around frequently. And another one is that it oculd be genetic. I say we give them the benefit of the doubt.Two, they love each other.. considering all the other reasonable things.. this says a lot in the natural law that I live in. (no I would not say that because somone loves a pig they should get to marry it. they don't have any oter reasonable evidence)

And because it seems I have to spell out how explicitly how everything relates to everything else, when you have differing reasonable values, people say that that means separation of church and state. Maybe you don't think they're reasonable to begin with.. that's your perogative.. maybe in fact I know you don't as a catholic you don't think that when people have reasonable values you shouldn't still separate church and state.


Al, think I need to clarify something. The values and stuff that you are arguing do coicide with what we are alking about. It just seems to be going too far too formal to argue these facts in the context of those. WHen we argue the facts as we've been doing, those concepts are implied. I suppose it's somewhat beneficial to use those, but if people thought what they thought when it was implied then I don't see how it's beneficial. Maybe some people just need to see it in that context, so if it helps you to undersatnd that this is a value based argument, I will argue in your context. To me it's just food for thought throwing those in there.

One, against what you said about the health, you have not shown how homosexual behavior is unhealthy unless they are fornicators.. in which fornicators from any walk of life is unhealthy. It seems that that point is moot.

The Dutch study does have some importance to it I admit. But that seems to be too limited to make an accurate appraisal. Who knows about they culture etc. And just because most get divorced, it's probably the culture as to why they get divorced too.. they're radical to begin with being like that in today's world.. that doesn't mean we should punish those who are sincere.

For why I think it promotes the general welfare. I've shown why I think it does here for soc and in the past ones. I've shown how they are equal to hetero.


Please show me how they are different than hetero. Please try to defend your arguments against homosexuals being against the public welfare.

Edited November 23, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Don John of Austria]

Aluigi--- Ido not recognize the authority of the State ( any State) to regulate or recognize a Sacrament if the Church wasn't so cowardly now days I wouldn't have gotten a marriage license at all( I am still deeply offended that the Church contrary to Church doctrine takes any notice of the States approval) now if you are discussing wether or not homosexual unions should be given any recognition at all, that is a completly different issue.

[quote]

Actually, according to St. Thomas it would be unjust for us to have a law that allows homosexual marriages because it's against Natural Law. [/quote]


Well the entire government of our naton is unjust and has been from the beginning ( the foundation of our country was openly hostile to Christ and His Church)
so whats one more violation. But frankly I think you miss understand me -- The State cannot pass a Law regarding marraige just or unjust, the State has no Authority to administer marriage at all and so any " laws" it passes are meaningless.

[Socrates]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Nov 23 2004, 10:49 AM']
You were the one that was saying that.. well the father's thought it was okay to hve slavery and not let women vote. Go back and look please. Well okay here ya go.




That seems to be your last resort argument, and I fully showed how that was not the case. Even if it was not your last resort argument, it was an argument nonetheless and it would be big of you to admit that it was not a good one. right? im mean to say that they thought it so it must be okay argument that you used.

They are related because I think gay marriage is good and not having slavery is good. You onlythink they're irrelevant because you think gay marraige is bad. Which leads to your other arguments.

Your other arguments are about "it's the standard that this is sin, therefore it's wrong". These are just value statements, you cannot back them up. I can say it doesn't matter what pepole think just like it doesn't matter what he presidents thought about things like slavery and women voting. Two things I would say to you though. One, animals do it.. doesn't make it right.. but at least it's natural. I think that I've heard of monogamous stratigh animals.. I suppose I've never seen any monogamous gay animals! But they do mess around frequently. And another one is that it oculd be genetic. I say we give them the benefit of the doubt.Two, they love each other.. considering all the other reasonable things.. this says a lot in the natural law that I live in. (no I would not say that because somone loves a pig they should get to marry it. they don't have any oter reasonable evidence)

And because it seems I have to spell out how explicitly how everything relates to everything else, when you have differing reasonable values, people say that that means separation of church and state. Maybe you don't think they're reasonable to begin with.. that's your perogative.. maybe in fact I know you don't as a catholic you don't think that when people have reasonable values you shouldn't still separate church and state.


Al, think I need to clarify something. The values and stuff that you are arguing do coicide with what we are alking about. It just seems to be going too far too formal to argue these facts in the context of those. WHen we argue the facts as we've been doing, those concepts are implied. I suppose it's somewhat beneficial to use those, but if people thought what they thought when it was implied then I don't see how it's beneficial. Maybe some people just need to see it in that context, so if it helps you to undersatnd that this is a value based argument, I will argue in your context. To me it's just food for thought throwing those in there.

One, against what you said about the health, you have not shown how homosexual behavior is unhealthy unless they are fornicators.. in which fornicators from any walk of life is unhealthy. It seems that that point is moot.

The Dutch study does have some importance to it I admit. But that seems to be too limited to make an accurate appraisal. Who knows about they culture etc. And just because most get divorced, it's probably the culture as to why they get divorced too.. they're radical to begin with being like that in today's world.. that doesn't mean we should punish those who are sincere.

For why I think it promotes the general welfare. I've shown why I think it does here for soc and in the past ones. I've shown how they are equal to hetero.


Please show me how they are different than hetero. Please try to defend your arguments against homosexuals being against the public welfare. [/quote]
Please stick the issue.

Your argument:
A. Thomas Jefferson owned slaves (therefore was wrong with regards slavery)
B. Thomas Jefferson was against homosexuality
C. Therefore Thomas Jefferson was wrong about homosexuality.

This argument is invalid. It proves absolutely nothing one way or the other about the rightness of same-sex marriage.

My argument was simply against your baseless assertion that gay marriage is what America was made for. If those who made this country were against homosexuality, that cannot be what America was made for. (Just proving the "opposing homosexual marriage is un-American" argument - nothing more)

Enough of that. Back to the main topic.

As for nature, animals kill each other, and kill and eat the babies sired by rival males (apes do this), and do all kinds of nasty things. Doesn't mean these actions should be legal for humans And animal "homosexuality" is a gesture by a stronger animal asserting his dominance over a weaker animal (much like prison homosexuality). Not much to do with "love"

Marriage is the monagomous union of a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation and raising children. Even if infertile, the relationship does not deliberately exclude the bearing of children.

This is different from homosexual unions, which are based on a perverted act which cannot produce children. That is how they are different.

And while I would assert that homosexuality is immoral and spiritually unhealthy and destructive, it is also physically unhealthy (check out the AIDS rates in gays!)

You have yet to explain how it promotes the general welfare.