Debate: Gay Marriage (Smooshable vs Myseri)

smooshable
Forum Expert
Posts: 1278
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 12:06 am
ID: 0
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Honours and Awards

Debate: Gay Marriage (Smooshable vs Myseri)

Topic:
"That it is right to allow couples of the same gender to legally marry and thereby get all the rights of a married couple in a free society."

Affirmative: Smooshable
Negative: Myseri

Start: By mutual agreement the debate started early.

Only those listed in the Affirmative or Negative teams may post in this thread, all other posts will be deleted.
Indu and proud of it!!
smooshable
Forum Expert
Posts: 1278
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 12:06 am
ID: 0
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Honours and Awards

Re: Debate: Gay Marriage (Smooshable vs Myseri)

Good Evening Ladies and Gentlemen.

Have you ever been in love? Doesn’t love just leave you feeling so giddy and googly eyed? The smile on your lover’s face, the soft touch of their hair, the smell of their perfume or cologne, the sound of their voice, the taste of a meal served by candle light, love is something that can ignite all the senses in a way nothing else can. It’s no wonder that so many people choose one person, above all others to spend their whole lives with, to wake up beside, every morning, to have children with, to grow old with. Isn’t that something you would like? I know I would.

But suppose you found that one person, and when you went to marry them, the government, of all people, the same people that are responsible for racking up huge national debts and those ridiculous TV ad campaigns told you that they didn’t approve of your loving relationship. Well you’d be heart broken, wouldn’t you? And who could blame you? What business is it of the government to tell you who you can and can’t marry, and that, ladies and gentlemen is what my opposition tonight is arguing, that the government, should arbitrarily tell some people, that their love is not good enough, not equal to the rest of the communities. But, that is wrong, and tonight it is my job to convince you of that. I will be arguing that liberty is the best policy.

The topic of tonight’s debate is that "It is right to allow couples of the same gender to legally marry and thereby get all the rights of a married couple in a free society."
As the affirmative side I will be arguing that when it comes to creating laws, the government of a free society should always be increasing our freedoms, not take them away from us because liberty is the best policy. In this case, marriage is a right enjoyed by anyone, so long as they marry someone of the opposite gender. 80 year olds can marry 18 year olds; Swedish people can marry plumbers, so long as they meet the arbitrary distinction of being of the opposite sex.

I would like to close my introduction with the words of the famous liberal philosopher, John Stuart Mill who some of you may know was responsible for jump starting the women’s suffrage movement, without this great man it is likely that women may still be being legally beaten by their husbands, let alone not being allowed to vote. He said that ‘the only part of the conduct that anyone is amenable to society is that which concerns others.’ Society can’t make women subservient to men, it can’t make people with dark skin inferior to people with white skin, and it can’t make people who are in love with someone of their same gender worth less than a heterosexual. In other words, liberty is the best policy.
Indu and proud of it!!
Myseri
Forum Elite
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 2:30 am
Alliance: The Pond
Race: Goa'uld
ID: 15959
Location: Left Phonepole in the middle of no where
Contact:

Re: Debate: Gay Marriage (Smooshable vs Myseri)

I would like to first thank everyone for following this debate upon which "gay" men and women should be allowed to be joined in wedlock. To start off, I would first like to give the definition that I found of marriage:

Marriage, a noun, the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.. This is straight from the Webster's dictionary that we all know and have used for a very long time.

My opponent might very well be correct along the lines of which our government has done in the past. But you have to realize, it is our government. It keeps rule and order in the lands that which we live. If we were to be rid of it, it would be anarchy, the world would fall into chaos. There would be no love or marriage without the government.

So while you may loathe the government for their wrong doings such as raising taxes, increasing the national debt, or fighting a war you don't believe in, you still must abide by the laws and rules they create to avoid the bad effects a "lawless" world. So if our government chose to not allow people of the same gender to marry, then it is something you must agree to.

Why does the government fully disapprove of same gender marriages? We can only draw our own conclusions. The first one that comes to my mind is that it is the opinion of the masses to do so. It is common knowledge that you must abide by which the masses agree upon. If the government passed a law which the masses did not approve upon, they would either change the government or vote out the officials in office, then vote in those who will listen to the masses. So with the government disapproving of same gender marriages, just the voice of the masses? I mean no one has been voted out because of the current rules put into place have they?
Image
Image
smooshable
Forum Expert
Posts: 1278
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 12:06 am
ID: 0
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Honours and Awards

Re: Debate: Gay Marriage (Smooshable vs Myseri)

Looking through Websters dictionary, I managed to find some other words: slavery and racism being amongst them. Our governments over the years have sanctioned many human rights violations. One that is no worse than any of the others is the treatment of homosexuals by our governments.

Some estimates have the percentage of homosexuals at 10% of the population, that’s 600 million world wide. The only possible way to justify the gross violation of the rights of a number of human beings this large is to say that the majority want it to be done. This may be because of religious views or just plain bigotry but what ever the reason, they have for believing it, I will show that historically, it has not been enough to prevent similar situations in the past.

Slavery is an institution that has existed since humans first became ‘civilized’. In the USA, the ‘land of the free’, human beings could be legally traded like live stock up until 1865. A slave had very few rights; they could be beaten and even raped or killed by their masters as they were seen merely as property at their owner’s disposal. Today we realise that this was wrong and never should have been allowed, we now know that liberty is the best policy. This wasn’t the work of a few evil people; it was society at large; the majority of people sanctioning this as a perfectly acceptable way for white men to build wealth. And it was only white men, men with skin colours other than white or women of any race could own nothing. Instead they were owned, the majority of people were sexist and racist but that didn’t make it right.

This brings me to my second point that Western society was extremely racist for many centuries. The government did not allow people of dark skin colour any of the civil rights we take for granted. Today there are no racial distinctions in the eyes of the law. It took many centuries of pain, tears and heartache but eventually the government loosened its grip and gave other races equal rights because they realised that liberty was the best policy. I could mention the history of voting rights or the record of African Americans being blamed for crimes they didn’t commit but the most interesting example I could find is that it wasn’t until 1967 that a loving couple who happened to have different skin colours could marry. That was in the life time of your grand parents, if not your parents and there are still those who think that it should be illegal for the same reasons they don’t want homosexuals to marry. The government was wrong to ban that until 1967 and they are wrong to ban same sex marriage now.

It is wrong to deny someone rights based on an arbitrary distinction such as skin colour. It is equally wrong to deny someone rights based upon their sexual preference, liberty is the best policy.
Indu and proud of it!!
Myseri
Forum Elite
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 2:30 am
Alliance: The Pond
Race: Goa'uld
ID: 15959
Location: Left Phonepole in the middle of no where
Contact:

Re: Debate: Gay Marriage (Smooshable vs Myseri)

I agree with you on the fact that people of a different race were treated unfairly. But you must realize, that gender and race are two different things. One is the color of your skin, the other is if you are male or female. To compare them like you are attempting to do, its like apples and oranges.

Slavery doesn't even belong in this topic, as does racism as they were based on race and not sex. While you can go back and talk about the fight for women to be able to vote, that is still not on topic as we are talking about members of the same sex, and not members of the opposite attempting to wed.

We are not discriminating against anyone, we are only choosing to put a limit on what the masses think is wrong or immoral. You mentioned that about 10% of the world are possibly homosexual. That means to be able to speak for the masses, that another 50% of the population of the world must be willing to accept the views and marriage of people of the same gender.

But for the masses to vote into law and authority, rules on banning the marriage of two members of the same sex. It shows that the masses must think that it is wrong for them do so. Spread through out the masses are those who would think the opposite and try to enforce it, but they as in almost all governments that don't wish to be overthrown, the masses voice reigns supreme.

Wrong is in the eyes of the beholder, there is no complete definition of what is right and wrong in the world of marriage. So how do we know what is right and wrong? We take the opinion of the masses and go with what they say is the right thing to do and the wrong thing to do. And still to this day, do they say that is wrong for members of the same sex to be joined in wedlock.

Homosexuals still have the right to prefer members of the same gender, we aren't taking away that. But they do not have a right to attempt to alter what a man and woman hold sacred, that is the bonds of marriage which is between one man, and one woman.
Image
Image
smooshable
Forum Expert
Posts: 1278
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 12:06 am
ID: 0
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Honours and Awards

Re: Debate: Gay Marriage (Smooshable vs Myseri)

The question being posed to you by the opposition is why is this human rights issue, the same as racism? The answer is because history will judge us by it. Gender and Race aren’t apples and oranges, they’re apples and apples, and they’re orange and oranges, history is going to judge them as the same as it did with sexual discrimination. But this isn’t the opposition’s real argument, as has been shown his real argument is that the majority rules, its democracy. But democracy doesn’t work like that. As my opponent has stated, ‘Wrong is in the eyes of the beholder’. Right and wrong are up to individuals to decide in a free society, but as I will now show, it is not up to the majority to decide morality for the minority. It is the case that liberty is the best policy.

The government has to do what is in the best interests of the public regardless of what will win elections. If the government announced tomorrow that if re-elected it would drop all taxes by 10% this would be hugely popular. Why don’t they? Because it’d be bad for the country, it’d even be bad for all the people who wanted to pay less tax. Their roads would be less safe, the quality of education for their children would drop, if they were injured their level of access to health care would plummet. The military and police who protect them would lose funding and they’d be vulnerable to attack.

There are many other popular ideas that will never happen because they are wrong. Banning Islam it has been suggested would be hugely popular, the bans on abortion were over turned not to long ago in Row v. Wade despite a majority of people saying that it was wrong. When women were able to have police step in to protect them from domestic violence this was seen by the majority as a breach upon a man’s right to exercise dominance in his castle, his home. We could go on all day showing unjust cases where the laws have to be changed despite public opinion but law makers have realised that liberty is the best policy. The idea that the government can interfere with your personal and private behaviour just because of public opinion is without any justification.

Freedom of morality is important, if people believe that homosexuality is immoral then they are perfectly within their rights not to engage in it. But not everyone holds this view. The majority of people also believe that it’s immoral not to believe in God, do you want a law made by government mandating everyone attend a weekly church service? Of course you don’t! It’s not their place to decide that for you because it’s a personal moral issue. It’s for YOU to decide! This is what it comes down to for me. I don’t want to be a homosexual, but I don’t need the government to tell me I can’t. Do you?
Indu and proud of it!!
Myseri
Forum Elite
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 2:30 am
Alliance: The Pond
Race: Goa'uld
ID: 15959
Location: Left Phonepole in the middle of no where
Contact:

Re: Debate: Gay Marriage (Smooshable vs Myseri)

You wouldn't know for sure if someone would or would not want something until it has been brought before them. What is to say that I am not an extremely religious man that does believe everyone should have to attend church? You are making assumptions in areas you shouldn't. Also, it was long decided ago that church and government were supposed to be two different entities. Neither would have sway on the other's decisions. This is in turn why I do not say that the "bible" says that a marriage is between a man and a woman. Because marriage is controlled by the government and not by the church.

You also claim that immorality is important. This is why we have laws against certain things that we find immoral such as killing and theft. Our laws that are created are to stop things that are considered immoral by a majority of the masses.

You will never get everyone to agree upon one answer, that is why you have to go with a majority and still a majority of the population even today find that homosexuality is immoral in their eyes. So that is why the government finds it within their rights to not allow the marriage between members of the same gender.
Image
Image
Myseri
Forum Elite
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 2:30 am
Alliance: The Pond
Race: Goa'uld
ID: 15959
Location: Left Phonepole in the middle of no where
Contact:

Re: Debate: Gay Marriage (Smooshable vs Myseri)

I believe it is time for us to be rated, seeing as smooshable hasn't responded
Image
Image
Osi
Forum Addict
Posts: 3736
Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 10:15 am
ID: 0

Re: Debate: Gay Marriage (Smooshable vs Myseri)

Myseri gets 95/100
Arguement had a good basis. You didn't rail against it or cry havok. Civil Union note and the defintion of marriage were good points. Perhaps a little more data. Overall a well structured, good arguement.

Smoosh gets a 90/100
Arguement was well based, and had good backround. Slightly repetitive. Overall good sturtuce. You had a lovely introduction with an excellent hook and conclusion.
Image
Our failure is obvious, we had our foot on the throat of Humanity and we failed to step down hard enough.
Fear Of The Duck
Forum Zombie
Posts: 7910
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 3:32 am

Re: Debate: Gay Marriage (Smooshable vs Myseri)

so... can i put my 2 cents here now?
Image
User avatar
semper
The sharp-tongued devil you can't seem to forget...
Posts: 7289
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 2:24 pm
Race: God
ID: 0
Location: Forever watching...always here...
Contact:

Re: Debate: Gay Marriage (Smooshable vs Myseri)

you can ask Myseri and Smooshable questions. Its part of the marking process. Just dont go off on one, and remember 500 word limit per post.
Image
Accolades/Titles:
Spoiler
Started Playing: April 2005
Honours (5): Hall of Fame 2009. Annual Awards Host 2008, 2009, 2013, 2014 and 2015.
Winner (12): RP'er of the Year 2008, Runner Up Poster of the Year 2008, Debater of the Year 2008, War of the Year 2008, Poster of the Year 2009, Alliance of the Year 2009 (Nemesis Sect, Creator), Alliance War of the Year 2009 (Nempire vs Mayhem, Instigator), RP'er Runner Up 2009, Knew You'd Be Back 2010, Conflict of the Decade (FUALL v TF), Conflict of the Decade Runner Up (Ga vs TF), Alliance of the Decade (TDD).
Nominated (8): Writer of the year 2007, Avatar of the Year 2007, Poster of the Year 2007, Villain of the Year 2008, Player Sig 2008, Race Player of the Year 2009, Most Missed 2010, Alliance Leadership 2010, Most Missed 2011.
Commands (3): Supreme System Lord 2008, 2010, 2011 and 2012. System Lord Council 2006 - present. Dark Lord and Emperor of the Nempire 2009 - 2011.
Alliances (9): DDE, EA, OSL, TFUR, DDEII, AI, RM, WoB, Nemesis.
Forum Roles (4): Former Misc GM, Race Mod (Goa'uld), Debate forum patriarch and mod.
User avatar
semper
The sharp-tongued devil you can't seem to forget...
Posts: 7289
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 2:24 pm
Race: God
ID: 0
Location: Forever watching...always here...
Contact:

Re: Debate: Gay Marriage (Smooshable vs Myseri)

no. That means your question is deleted for breaking the rules, 3 post's or not. Were not stupid. :wink:
Image
Accolades/Titles:
Spoiler
Started Playing: April 2005
Honours (5): Hall of Fame 2009. Annual Awards Host 2008, 2009, 2013, 2014 and 2015.
Winner (12): RP'er of the Year 2008, Runner Up Poster of the Year 2008, Debater of the Year 2008, War of the Year 2008, Poster of the Year 2009, Alliance of the Year 2009 (Nemesis Sect, Creator), Alliance War of the Year 2009 (Nempire vs Mayhem, Instigator), RP'er Runner Up 2009, Knew You'd Be Back 2010, Conflict of the Decade (FUALL v TF), Conflict of the Decade Runner Up (Ga vs TF), Alliance of the Decade (TDD).
Nominated (8): Writer of the year 2007, Avatar of the Year 2007, Poster of the Year 2007, Villain of the Year 2008, Player Sig 2008, Race Player of the Year 2009, Most Missed 2010, Alliance Leadership 2010, Most Missed 2011.
Commands (3): Supreme System Lord 2008, 2010, 2011 and 2012. System Lord Council 2006 - present. Dark Lord and Emperor of the Nempire 2009 - 2011.
Alliances (9): DDE, EA, OSL, TFUR, DDEII, AI, RM, WoB, Nemesis.
Forum Roles (4): Former Misc GM, Race Mod (Goa'uld), Debate forum patriarch and mod.
Fear Of The Duck
Forum Zombie
Posts: 7910
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 3:32 am

Re: Debate: Gay Marriage (Smooshable vs Myseri)

That it is right to allow couples of the same gender to legally marry and thereby get all the rights of a married couple in a free society


Q to both:
1) how do you define a "free society"?
2) what kind of laws EXACTLY are we talking about here?


@smoosh:
smooshable wrote:If the government announced (...) it would drop all taxes by 10% this would be hugely popular. Why don’t they? Because it’d be bad for the country, (...) Their roads would be less safe, the quality of education for their children would drop, if they were injured their level of access to health care would plummet.

1) actually, after short period of "shock" the results of that decision would be exactly the OPPOSITE (proof will take more than 500 words).
2) d'ya seriously think goverment in a free society should stick it's fingers in health and education? tell ppl what level of health service they can get and what they children should learn and how much should they pay for that?

The military and police who protect them would lose funding and they’d be vulnerable to attack.

disputable. depends on where on the laffer curve the tax system is.



@myseri:
Myseri wrote:We take the opinion of the masses and go with what they say is the right thing to do and the wrong thing to do.

ya base yer argumentation on "masses". this is democracy, ergo not a free society imho, so all yer argumentation is off-topic and irrelevant. (ya both failed to define free society at the beginning ;) )

from what ya say we can draw following conclusions:
1) "masses" voted for adolf h - ergo he and what he did was right and moral
(btw: "masses" also voted for bush jr.)
2) "hypotheticaly "masses" can decide in a vote to kill all dark skinned ppl in certain area. since "masses" voted that, therefore it's right and moral.

my opinion:
smoosh wins
myseri looses miserable
Image
smooshable
Forum Expert
Posts: 1278
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 12:06 am
ID: 0
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Honours and Awards

Re: Debate: Gay Marriage (Smooshable vs Myseri)

Corran Horn wrote:Q to both:
1) how do you define a "free society"?
2) what kind of laws EXACTLY are we talking about here?

@smoosh:
1) actually, after short period of "shock" the results of that decision would be exactly the OPPOSITE (proof will take more than 500 words).
2) d'ya seriously think goverment in a free society should stick it's fingers in health and education? tell ppl what level of health service they can get and what they children should learn and how much should they pay for that?

disputable. depends on where on the laffer curve the tax system is.


Firstly, thankyou for your questions Corran, I think they're important and should be addressed.

A free society is what we've come to love here in the western hemisphere. We get to vote for our leaders and they inturn create laws that are fair and justifiable to all of society. This separates us from regimes in many parts of Asia, Africa and the Middle East where governments are formed by those with the greatest military power or by virtue of their birth. These repressive regimes like to root out groups they personally don’t like. In Nazi Germany it was the Jews, in apartheid South Africa it was the people of black skin and in Zimbabwe currently it is people of white skin. Who is targeted changes depending on the place and region and is far from universal. Of course these are extreme examples but help to show that what is happening is nothing new. There is one rule for some and another rule for the rest. In this case, Heterosexuals can marry and homosexuals can not.

In parts of Europe it is the Christians who are being persecuted by the government for preaching what they believe about homosexuality inside their own congregations. This is in my opinion as much a breach of personal freedom and liberty as what is currently happening in the West. Homosexuals are being persecuted by the government by not being afforded the same rights as heterosexuals. To answer your second question the laws that need to be changed are the ones that prevent homosexual couples access to the same financial (tax etc.) benefits afforded to heterosexuals in the institution of marriage. As a free and private organisation churches and ministers are not required to perform these services if they wish not to but many are. On top of this even many heterosexual unions are formed outside of churches these days.

On the point of government services I understand and personally disagree that taxation to fund public services is a bad thing. There are certainly many points for and against this and maybe later we could debate it as another topic. But this is one area I am surprised Liberals and Conservatives can’t agree. Surely you don’t think government should be so small that the only place it can fit is inside the bedroom. To me this is what it sounds like when conservatives come out slashing taxes to improve our spendable income and yet want to keep laws in place that deny non-financial freedoms.

Again, thank you for your question.

Smoosh
Indu and proud of it!!
Myseri
Forum Elite
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 2:30 am
Alliance: The Pond
Race: Goa'uld
ID: 15959
Location: Left Phonepole in the middle of no where
Contact:

Re: Debate: Gay Marriage (Smooshable vs Myseri)

I'll respond as soon as I get up tomorrow, have a bad headache tonight
Image
Image
Locked

Return to “Official league, judged, debates”