Since there is some action going again, I have decided to post the entire debate as one post. That way you can read through the whole thing. The one drawback is you won’t get to see the comments section, but I thought it’d be worth doing.
Debate: Pro Gay Marriage Opening
Written by: adamfeser
February 28, 2009 in Uncategorized Tags: Gay Marriage
Homosexuals should be allowed to marry. To me, this is obvious. They are Americans protected by the Constitution, which gives each American equal rights. Our society has built up finding a partner to spend the rest of your life with as one of the main means of finding happiness, and denying homosexuals this right denies them their pursuit of happiness. In addition to this, denying them the ability to marry and all the rights and benefits that come with marriage implies that they are second-class citizens, that they are somehow lower than the rest of Americans because of who they are. They are fine to watch on television, just as long as they don’t have equal rights. What an absolute joke.
I am so sick of the argument that homosexuality is a choice. I just spent a couple minutes searching through LexisNexis Academic and JSTORE and studies showing that homosexuality is not a choice are seemingly infinite. With humans and animals, sexual preference is often fixed at birth. Over 450 species of animals exhibit homosexual behavior (The Monitor). Man is an animal. Whether it is a gene, the hypothalamus, or any other number of things, homosexuals are who they are. If you want more proof that homosexuality is not a choice, think of it this way: Does it make someone’s life easier to “choose” homosexuality? If it’s a choice, why do so many repressed fundamentalists who a oppose gay marriage get busted engaging in homosexual activity?
The main opposition to gay marriage is religious. This really upsets me. This is America, but we are letting religious views deny a minority equal rights. What happened to separation of church and state? That is one of America’s biggest contributions to the world, and it should matter. We don’t have a state religion, we don’t force people to go to church on Sunday, and we shouldn’t deny rights based on interpretations of religious dogma. I would even argue it from a religious perspective. Did Jesus ever say anything about homosexuality? No. If you want to use the Old Testament as your guide, then all Christians should be keeping Kosher and stoning people for a huge number of offenses.
What is left? Any slippery slope argument cannot work in a debate, because it is a fallacy. Even if one were to take up the fallacy and argue that gay marriage would lead to polygamy and marrying animals or whatever, they would be wrong. The logic just is not there. It is an attempt to change the subject, and it is not the point.
I’m not sure what other arguments against gay marriage there are. Gay marriage is not an attack on traditional marriage. How is it an attack? I never understood this logic, either. How does allowing gays to marry affect traditional marriage? As Jon Stewart said, “Divorce isn’t caused because 50% of marriages end in gayness.” For me, it is as simple as this: If you don’t want a gay marriage, don’t get one. How simple is that?
In America, history does not look kindly on those that opposed civil rights. Interracial marriage was once illegal, and the people who wanted to keep it that way look absolutely ridiculous. The fight for gay rights will be remembered in the same way. People will look back and wonder how anyone could have wanted to make gay marriage illegal, how Americans could have denied fellow Americans equal rights.
Again, if you don’t want a gay marriage, don’t get one. But don’t force your beliefs on others.
Written by: Dr
March 3, 2009 in Uncategorized Tags: Gay Marriage
Sorry this took sooooo long
I am going to be very unpopular with the gay rights activists, but I am going to use scripture. God’s law is above any man made law.
“Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. (Lev 18:22)
This scripture is rather clear. No deep interpretation needed here. In fact, this statement describes homosexuality as detestable sometimes translated as abomination. It means “disgusting.” Gay people should not think God is singling out their sins, however. This sin is simply part of a list of twenty other sexual unions forbidden. Other sins include adultery, incest and bestiality.
Jesus himself does not talk about same sex marriages (ssm) in the new testament. He says that marriage should be between a man and a women.
Now my opponent will say as his has said in the past, there is a seperation between church and state. Well I argue that the foundings of this great country are based on religion.
“In God we trust”
Enough said about that.
If ssm were right, two men or two women would be able to have children together. We all know that can’t happen
Now it can also be said that ss couples can have children though adoption. I laugh at that. I am sorry, but no!
In slavery times, it was left up to the states to decided if they wanted slavery, and when the federal government stepped in, Cival War brokeout. Its time again to take this out of the states hands and let congress decide or better yet, put it to public vote.
Debate: Pro Gay Marriage Rebuttal
Written by: adamfeser
March 4, 2009 in Uncategorized
Dr, I am okay with how long it took you to respond, but I am surprised at the weakness of the argument. Then again, there really is no good reason to oppress Americans.
Quoting scripture is absolutely ridiculous. I believe I will quote some so I don’t feel left out. Let’s start with Leviticus.
Leviticus 11:7 – And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.
Don’t forget shellfish is unclean, as well. If God’s law is above man’s, pork producers are in trouble.
Leviticus 24:16 – anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him. Whether an alien or native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, he must be put to death.
What an uplifting message.
1 Timothy 2:12-14 – I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man.
Oh sexism, why are you no longer state sanctioned since we are a Christian country?
I could go on doing this, bringing out verses that contradict one another (jealousy is a sin, God is jealous, but somehow God is perfect) or more verses that are simply horrible, but I won’t. There is no need.
First of all, the founding of this country was not based on religion. It was based on representational democracy. They didn’t cry “In God we trust,” they cried “No taxation without representation.” If the U.S. was based on religion, amazing people like Thomas Jefferson would not have thought up freedom of religion and the separation of church and state. I will not ignore it just because it completely destroys any meaning your argument has.
And as for the “In God we trust” stuff, which God? Why do you just assume it is your God or that specific scripture? Should we live according to Qur’an? What about the Theravada? Even if we use yours, which translation or interpretation? My God doesn’t support denying people rights in his name. Enough said about that.
Also, are you implying that we should outlaw homosexuality? Just because homosexuals can’t get married doesn’t mean they aren’t out there, breaking your idea of God’s law. What difference would it make if they were given equal rights? No one is forcing you to be gay. You can abide by whatever scripture you like without forcing other people to follow it. That is America.
I’ve always been told that Jesus superseded the Old Testament and its laws. Paul, the father of Christianity, argued this very thing. That’s why people talk about God’s love and not his tendency to destroy cities/the world. I don’t really care whether or not you think he did because scripture has no place in American policy, but it’s just a thought for Christians not wanting to hold homosexuals down because they are “disgusting.”
Are you implying that men and women without the ability to have children shouldn’t marry? Since when are children a necessary part of marriage? What is wrong with adoption?
I asked a lot of questions here because nothing you said made sense. Your whole argument hinged on the phrase “In God we trust” as evidence that there is no separation of church and state. But there is; there most certainly is.
Accepting your argument that God’s law is above other law, should we then make it illegal to worship other gods? Should we make tattoos illegal? Tattoos are right there in your oh so awesome book of Leviticus: Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD – Leviticus: 19:28. James 2:10 states, “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.” Therefore all sins must be outlawed, right? Or is it that we only outlaw the ones that you’re not comfortable with? If you don’t support legislating all of scripture, why just this one point?
We cannot and should not legislate religion.
Enough said about that.
Final Thoughts then
Written by: Dr
March 10, 2009 in Uncategorized
Ok, well we best not talk about abortion, mercy killing, ect. because I will site religion on several of those points. Really what we should have talked about is does religion have a place in Gov’t. But that is that.
What’s next. Where are you on the recent smoking ban? Me: YAY! You pick the next topic and I will go first.
Harldly Working, Making no difference
Final Debate Thoughts
Written by: adamfeser
March 10, 2009 in Uncategorized
Sorry, the post on Saudi Arabia wasn’t meant to be my final post. I thought it was interesting and related. My main point is that religion can be a guide for someone in their personal lives, but they cannot force other people to use it as a guide. Of course there should be a separation of church and state. Of course you cannot legislate religion. It would be impossible because not even all Christians agree on interpretations of the Bible. Not all Muslims agree on interpretations of the Qur’an. Some Buddhists believe there is a god while others do not. How can we legislate that which even the religions cannot agree on? It isn’t just which religion is the right one, it’s also which sect or denomination is the correct one?
All of that being said, sometimes we forget about the human aspect of it. Your wife made an excellent point, Dr. What if your child was gay? Would you not want the child to live a full life, one in which our government recognized him or her and his or her partner as equals? It is understandable that people in our area of the country will be less accepting of homosexuals, at first, because simply based on population there are not going to be as many homosexuals. But that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy because homosexuals will not want to stay in a place where people do not accept them. The point I’m trying to make is that they are simply people, and that is often forgotten when we discuss them as though they are a hypothetical thing somewhere far away.
This hasn’t really been a closing argument, I’m just sort of trying to bring closure to the discussion. I honestly did not expect this entire debate to focus on religion. I was okay with debating it from that perspective, but I was surprised and pleased that the debate became about the place of religion in government. Perhaps I won the key battle in any form of politics, which is framing the debate. Generally speaking, I don’t think anyone was disrespectful, even in the comments, which is good. I’d say the first debate was a success (though I definitely feel I dominated you doc).
I think we should definitely get another debate going. Here’s the old list:
Funding stem cell research – Feser – affirmative; Dr. – negative
Offshore drilling – Dr. – affrimative; Feser – negative
Gay marriage – Feser – affirmative; Dr. – negative
Universal Healthcare – Feser – affirmative; Dr. – negative
Racing as sport – Dr. – affirmative; Feser – who cares? scratch this one, I’ll just agree
South Dakota stuff
I think aks would love to see us debate stem cell research. You may bring up religion, but I don’t even see what the religious argument is there. Offshore drilling would be a good debate. Perhaps we should throw all of the options in a poll and let the readers decide. At any rate, just let me know what you think, doc.
Also, the poll was 32 yes on gay marriage, 20 no. That’s quite a few voters, and I doubt there were as many double votes as there were on my poll. Not bad.
Enjoy the Simpsons haiku, because there are plenty to come.
- internal hemorrhoids treatments on Egypt Reactions
- like this on John Thune and Sotomayor
- jquery mobile tutorial on College Football/Nebraska-KSU Challenge
- discount learn css3 pdf on Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now aka ACORN
- site link on Rep. Weiner on Justice Thomas and the Appearance of Bias
- rate us online on House Officially Disapproves of Wilson’s Outburst
- rate us on Will Rogers Said It Best
- t1 circuit info on Good God Glenn
- reality show casting on Teacher takes Student the wood shed…
- insurnace companies on Vermont Legalizes Gay Marriage
Most Commented Posts
- Miss me yet (130)
- Arizona's Racist Law (119)
- Confessions of a Tea Party Casualty (83)
- Smoking Ban Thoughts and Poll (80)
- Tom Tancredo Wants Literacy Tests (76)
- The Apparent Trap/Hawaiian Health Care (62)
- Sarah Palin: Persecuted Jew? (57)
- Healthcare (53)
- Cash for Clunkers: What a joke! (50)
- Tom Coburn Has Pelosi's Back and a Point (49)