Same Sex Marriage Debate (1 Viewer)

[sida1049]

For the most part, I agree and have no issues with your discussion of the ethical aspect of the SSM debate.

I don't think this assessment is entirely reasonable. But I should have clarified a bit.
The reason why I will not vote with socialists even if the cause they are fighting for [is agreeable], is because their means are wrong and it is a conscientious objection to the values on which the society stands on. So there is always an ethics or moral reason involved, not because of malice towards them (which is what the 'ad honimen' card can imply). I may agree with the ends but not the means of getting there, if you get what I am saying.
(The means which can include the obnoxious-ness of it) (Which is why some would be ok with civil unions but not SSM)

While I sympathise with what you're trying to say, I still think this is a misguided argument.

You mentioned that you will vote against socialists on every turn because of their means, from an ethical viewpoint. Let's assume that you voted purely on this basis. Now we have another problem: not everyone "yes" voter is a socialist. I don't have the data to back this up, but I'm willing to claim very confidently that the majority of "yes" voters are not socialist. This should highlight even vividly why this particular reasoning is flawed: even if you agree with the issue and even if you agree with you have no ethical quarrels with the majority of people on an issue, the reasoning you've described would lead you to oppose the issue if there are (for example) socialists associated with it. You are voting against a socialist minority and against a majority whom you may not necessarily have any problems with.

Also, your problem isn't even really with socialists, but with people who advocate their agendas a certain way, of whom can be found in every spectrum of politics; not every socialist is necessarily obnoxious and uses unethical means to push their agendas.

Now back to the issue of the ad hominem-ness of the decision making process you've described. The core of the ad hominem fallacy has nothing to do with malice and intent; it's just that when you recognise an ad hominem fallacy, chances are, it carries malice towards the opposition. The fundamental reason why ad hominem is a fallacious argument is because it reduces your decision process to associations with groups of people: "the issue X is supported by Y, and I do not like Y, so I will oppose X." So even if your motivation behind your decision making is an ethical one, it doesn't make it any less of an ad hominem.

The biggest problem I have with the reasoning/rebuttals that is you seem to argue that the issue at hand is disconnected from all the other (even if they are unrelated) issues, that either side raises. I fundamentally disagree on that because of what marriage is as a concept (even it is just to me)

I don't think SSM is necessarily disconnected from many other issues. If the other issues are relevant, then it should be discussed. The problem is, is that many other issues that are dragged into the debate is done so underhandedly and invalidly.

For instance with marriage redefinition (as that is what it is): ...

Some of these issues are relevant, but not all. And just because I support SSM doesn't mean I support every issue that some other SSM supporters may also support.

 

[Paradoxica]

Things like discrimination and rights are all ethical questions. This is why this debate is so hard to navigate.

It really isn't. Tolerating intolerance is never the answer.

 

[cosmo 2]

zzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Jaxxnuts]

only a matter a time before the gays accept and start pushing pedophilia mainstream

love is love is their slogan, can apply that same logic

Australia is already doomed by accepting this abomination

read this: http://affinitymagazine.us/2017/07/11/pedophiles-are-claiming-that-they-deserve-rights/

 

[jackyjack96]

Love how others get to decide on whether gay people are granted rights or not.

Can't believe it took this long for gay people the right and choice to marry...should only be them allowed to vote right???

Democratic processes (voting) deciding on whether others are granting democratic rights OR NOT.

 

[Helen2002]

I am 18. Once, when I was 15-16 I guess, I have read an article about how it is important to hold hands often if you are in a loving relationship, and since that time in my brain the happiest couples are those ones who are holding hands walking down the street or anywhere, it became like a holy sigh for me, like a symbol of truly loving relationships, and I have a dream when I will have my partner we will be doing the same, what means we are happy together, after I got it set in my mind, honestly, it looks ugly to me when I see the same-sex couple do it somewhere on TV in films, shows, once I saw it on the street when we traveled across Europe - I had a feeling of betrayal, like they must not do that, like they have no rights, cuz only girls and boys can do it..... this is how I can answer in this thread about the same sex marriage, it`s much more strange than holding hands, anyway it`s just my opinion and kind of internal feeling

 

[Drdusk]

I am 18. Once, when I was 15-16 I guess, I have read an article about how it is important to hold hands often if you are in a loving relationship, and since that time in my brain the happiest couples are those ones who are holding hands walking down the street or anywhere, it became like a holy sigh for me, like a symbol of truly loving relationships, and I have a dream when I will have my partner we will be doing the same, what means we are happy together, after I got it set in my mind, honestly, it looks ugly to me when I see the same-sex couple do it somewhere on TV in films, shows, once I saw it on the street when we traveled across Europe - I had a feeling of betrayal, like they must not do that, like they have no rights, cuz only girls and boys can do it..... this how I can answer in this thread about the same sex marriage, it`s much more strange than holding hands, anyway it`s just my opinion and kind of internal feeling

I got no issues with same sex marriage.

Feelings can not be used to make laws. Feelings are subjective and vary for everyone, free countries are great for a reason. Gay marriage is not harming any innocent person so legally there should be nothing wrong with it.

 

[quickoats]

I am 18. Once, when I was 15-16 I guess, I have read an article about how it is important to hold hands often if you are in a loving relationship, and since that time in my brain the happiest couples are those ones who are holding hands walking down the street or anywhere, it became like a holy sigh for me, like a symbol of truly loving relationships, and I have a dream when I will have my partner we will be doing the same, what means we are happy together, after I got it set in my mind, honestly, it looks ugly to me when I see the same-sex couple do it somewhere on TV in films, shows, once I saw it on the street when we traveled across Europe - I had a feeling of betrayal, like they must not do that, like they have no rights, cuz only girls and boys can do it..... this how I can answer in this thread about the same sex marriage, it`s much more strange than holding hands, anyway it`s just my opinion and kind of internal feeling

Does this mean straight people who look ugly to you shouldn't get married?

 

[Kyufruit]

I was never even able to wrap my mind around the fact that some people liked the same gender until I entered high school (all girls school) and everyone around me was lesbian aSF

 

[dighead]

 

[SylviaB]

I got no issues with same sex marriage.

Feelings can not be used to make laws. Feelings are subjective and vary for everyone, free countries are great for a reason. Gay marriage is not harming any innocent person so legally there should be nothing wrong with it.

Literally all support for any law is based on subjective feelings

 

[Idek_yeetthis]

I am 18. Once, when I was 15-16 I guess, I have read an article about how it is important to hold hands often if you are in a loving relationship, and since that time in my brain the happiest couples are those ones who are holding hands walking down the street or anywhere, it became like a holy sigh for me, like a symbol of truly loving relationships, and I have a dream when I will have my partner we will be doing the same, what means we are happy together, after I got it set in my mind, honestly, it looks ugly to me when I see the same-sex couple do it somewhere on TV in films, shows, once I saw it on the street when we traveled across Europe - I had a feeling of betrayal, like they must not do that, like they have no rights, cuz only girls and boys can do it..... this is how I can answer in this thread about the same sex marriage, it`s much more strange than holding hands, anyway it`s just my opinion and kind of internal feeling

Your subjective feelings have no place in determining whether a community of people should attain basic rights or not.

 

[SylviaB]

Your subjective feelings have no place in determining whether a community of people should attain basic rights or not.

The fact you consider them basic rights is a result of YOUR subjective feelings in the first place

 

[Helen2002]

I got no issues with same sex marriage.

Feelings can not be used to make laws. Feelings are subjective and vary for everyone, free countries are great for a reason. Gay marriage is not harming any innocent person so legally there should be nothing wrong with it.

Yes indeed, you cannot force people to look at the world with your visions and opinions, and laws have to serve all people

 

[Helen2002]

Does this mean straight people who look ugly to you shouldn't get married?

No, it doesn't mean exactly this. I was talking about the moral side of a question and a bit religious side maybe because marriage was invented by religion previously, but if religion is separated from the political so what`s the problem to legalize such things - from this "law" side I don`t mind same-sex marriages at all

 

[Drdusk]

Literally all support for any law is based on subjective feelings

I’m not talking about support. I’m talking about the justification of a Law. Laws are usually justified by facts. Like drinking and driving is forbidden past a certain level because your brain is not able to process information and make decisions in order to drive safely. It’s not just based off a bunch of people saying you shouldn’t drink and drive because I find it disgusting or weird. In some religions drinking is banned. I’m sure everyone would hate it if people started saying drinking should be banned because it’s immoral in their religion.

I would rather have an objective reason for why it is bad and not an argument made from a religious stand point. Religion and state are two seperate things.

 

[SylviaB]

I’m not talking about support. I’m talking about the justification of a Law. Laws are usually justified by facts. Like drinking and driving is forbidden past a certain level because your brain is not able to process information and make decisions in order to drive safely. It’s not just based off a bunch of people saying you shouldn’t drink and drive because I find it disgusting or weird. In some religions drinking is banned. I’m sure everyone would hate it if people started saying drinking should be banned because it’s immoral in their religion.

That literally happens in numerous countries around the world

 

[dighead]

Yeah a lot of the arguments being put forth are naive af and aren't grounded in reality at all. There's always feelings and personal subjectiveness when it comes to making laws. If people really behaved logically, then we'd be living in a utopia and communism would work.

In terms of the "if it doesn't hurt anybody" argument, do u also believe in legalizing drugs? If u use it yourself, you aren't hurting anybody.

 

[Idek_yeetthis]

The fact you consider them basic rights is a result of YOUR subjective feelings in the first place

Okay, fair enough, I have realised that law is often based on widely held values and constructs in society. But in that case, shouldn't it be reflective of these changing values and constructs, as that is also an essential basis of law? Because then we can agree that our current awareness on the LGBTQ community, and the increasingly common acceptance and empathy for the community means that legislation around their rights should change. This is already reflected in the fact that the Law Council of Australia has backed marriage equality on human rights grounds, stating explicitly that discrimination on sexual orientation opposes Australia's protection of human rights obligations (it's observed in an Amnesty International source that I can't link).

 

[CM_Tutor]

The fact you consider them basic rights is a result of YOUR subjective feelings in the first place

Fundamental / basic human rights are those that are possessed by every human being as a consequence of existing, they are inherent to all and exist from birth. As the UNHCR puts it, they "range from the most fundamental - the right to life - to those that make life worth living, such as the rights to food, education, work, health, and liberty." And, they are connected with being able to meet our needs. As social animals, humans need to associate with others. Typically, this includes family who provide for our physical and emotional needs and offer protection as we develop the capabilities to become responsible for ourselves. It includes the associations we choose as we form friendships. And, it extends to our right to choose who we will not associate with. These rights are grounded in our needs as humans and function to ensure that our needs can be met; they are neither subjective nor based in emotion.

Sylvia, when you were born you lacked the capability to exercise your rights of freedom of association. Some adults took responsibility for you (most likely your parents) and they made choices for you. As you matured and developed the necessary skills, you took over some responsibility for selecting social contacts. As an adult, you become autonomous and able to make all such choices, though you also accept that choices may come with consequences. You choose your friends and can choose how close you and others become. If you wish, you can choose to engage in sexual activities with another person so long as you both consent to the activities and are both competent to do so. Intimate relations are a part of fulfilling our needs as social animals.

Thus, I ask: On what basis are the rights of consenting, competent adults to satisfy their needs not basic human rights? On what basis can / should such rights be curtailed by society?