If you don't believe in natural rights and accept their existence then I will just exit the conversation right now.
And you are right. I am a theist. Catholic. I also belong to an society built of objective thinking. And I am considering all aspects of marriage. And I don't see how the "ultimate goal" per-say is procreating. BUT. I will stoop to your level (provided you accept natural rights), and debate with you as if the ultimate goal and our drive is for the prolonging of humans. Over population will end the human race. And homosexual marriage helps because they don't procreate. And the more homosexuals that exist in the world, the more people not procreating at the highest rate ever known to man. It's a HUGE issue right now. So simply for your shallow reasoning of prolonging the human race rather than any aspects of love, one should support domestic partnership.
And as for them adopting: Why on earth would you not allow two people who love each other to have a kid? Would you rather them live as orphans? You need to understand that many homosexuals would take a child as such a lavish gift that they could potentially treat them incredibly well.
And again, sinking towards your incredibly shallow state of mind about marriage: Doesn't homosexuals having more rights help the economy? If the work place doesn't discriminate against sexual preference, homosexuals can start acquiring higher paying jobs and purchase expensive items, and further help and economic crisis.
So there are your immoral yet statistical points of why homosexuals should have equal rights.
And you are right. I am a theist. Catholic. I also belong to an society built of objective thinking. And I am considering all aspects of marriage. And I don't see how the "ultimate goal" per-say is procreating. BUT. I will stoop to your level (provided you accept natural rights), and debate with you as if the ultimate goal and our drive is for the prolonging of humans. Over population will end the human race. And homosexual marriage helps because they don't procreate. And the more homosexuals that exist in the world, the more people not procreating at the highest rate ever known to man. It's a HUGE issue right now. So simply for your shallow reasoning of prolonging the human race rather than any aspects of love, one should support domestic partnership.
And as for them adopting: Why on earth would you not allow two people who love each other to have a kid? Would you rather them live as orphans? You need to understand that many homosexuals would take a child as such a lavish gift that they could potentially treat them incredibly well.
And again, sinking towards your incredibly shallow state of mind about marriage: Doesn't homosexuals having more rights help the economy? If the work place doesn't discriminate against sexual preference, homosexuals can start acquiring higher paying jobs and purchase expensive items, and further help and economic crisis.
So there are your immoral yet statistical points of why homosexuals should have equal rights.
Need help?
Creati0n says: still my favorite. <3
I sacrificed my firstborn for this great human being to join (M) ~R
Just Use Thunder!
Creati0n says: still my favorite. <3
I sacrificed my firstborn for this great human being to join (M) ~R
Just Use Thunder!
Given the fact you didn't concede to the fact that natural rights exist I will no longer participate in this debate. There is no way to sway you with any logical though process or reasoning at this point.
Need help?
Creati0n says: still my favorite. <3
I sacrificed my firstborn for this great human being to join (M) ~R
Just Use Thunder!
Creati0n says: still my favorite. <3
I sacrificed my firstborn for this great human being to join (M) ~R
Just Use Thunder!
Hydrotoxin: You should learn now that not everyone is worth debating with. Some basis and grounds to be established between people before an convincing arguments can be made. To call you insane isn't fair, but the simple fact remains that I find the fact you refuse to accept the existence of natural rights is a basis of a great deal of philosophy that I believe in. And that all objectivists in our society. So I am sorry I "disappointed" you for leaving this debate. There is a certain line where I am going to bend to opinions of other. This is honestly, for me, equivalent to accepting that all of our laws of physics are just lies and are wrong, so I can't just "cope" to those circumstances.
If you have a vent channel you want to discuss this with me, I will be more than happy to discuss this further with you.
If you have a vent channel you want to discuss this with me, I will be more than happy to discuss this further with you.
Need help?
Creati0n says: still my favorite. <3
I sacrificed my firstborn for this great human being to join (M) ~R
Just Use Thunder!
Creati0n says: still my favorite. <3
I sacrificed my firstborn for this great human being to join (M) ~R
Just Use Thunder!
Originally Posted by hydrotoxin
@Odlov,
While it's true that denying certain benefits to people based on something as seemingly arbitrary seems "unethical", think of it as a negative incentive of something that society as a whole still very much frowns upon. And for whoever mentioned the unconstitutionality of anti-homosexual laws, do you really think the law treats everyone equally? As much as some would like to think that the law views everything objectively and treats everyone with a general demeanour of egalitarianism, if everyone was equal in all respects, there wouldn't really be much of a need for those laws in the first place, would there?
And America will keep frowning upon homosexuality until the law gives homosexuals equal civil rights. Public opinion is largely shaped by law. Until the law changes, bigots will use it as justification (and fuel), much like they use 'sacred texts' for the same purpose.
Redneck: "Faggot marriage is illegal cuz it's a perversion, nd California law and GOD agrees wit me"
The whole purpose of "social development" thing is to minimize suffering and maximize efficiency. There is no serious drawback to letting gays marry, while not doing so would simply isolate a group and create unrest and hinder efficiency. From your posts it seems you think homosexuality is a strain of flu virus, that will just spread to everyone who grows up around gays. Clearly it's nonsense. Homosexuals are a minority, yet they were always present, even in societies who wouldn't even recognize that such thing existed (Soviet Union, for example). Hardwired sexual orientation > societal influence, always.
Originally Posted by liam
I agree with Cowmeat, all kids should have a mum. I guess it brings a sense of security to a child. But, then the question of "what about a dad?" pops up.
It's highly debatable.
Using "all kids should have a mom" as an argument against gay adoption is like me saying "all men should be healthy" to a person with diabetes, refusing to give him insulin until he dies.
The kids we are talking about have no family at all. It's better they get some family, gay or otherwise.
Last edited by Odlov; Dec 6, 2009 at 09:24 AM.
