This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Homosexual Rights
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
In my opinion I have seen nothing wrong with homsexual marriages, isnt one of our natural rights the pursuit of happiness and for some that pursuit is romance with the same sex, and I see nothing wrong with it, it isnt like it will effect me.
That's faulty reasoning. Murder makes serial killers happy. Playing loud music at night makes my neighbors happy. You can't leave your argument as it stands, a couple more steps might do it.
Btw on 3+ people unions that is probably more of a
financial and business
reason that doesnt happen, but if more people argued for it I could imagine it being accepted after a while
Isn't that essentially what a non-religious marriage is?
Post by
TheMediator
In my opinion I have seen nothing wrong with homsexual marriages, isnt one of our natural rights the pursuit of happiness and for some that pursuit is romance with the same sex, and I see nothing wrong with it, it isnt like it will effect me.
That's faulty reasoning. Murder makes serial killers happy. Playing loud music at night makes my neighbors happy. You can't leave your argument as it stands, a couple more steps might do it.
Btw on 3+ people unions that is probably more of a
financial and business
reason that doesnt happen, but if more people argued for it I could imagine it being accepted after a while
Isn't that essentially what a non-religious marriage is?
Murder and playing loud music at night infringe on others rights. Letting two guys marry each other doesn't. Try again.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
In my opinion I have seen nothing wrong with homsexual marriages, isnt one of our natural rights the pursuit of happiness and for some that pursuit is romance with the same sex, and I see nothing wrong with it, it isnt like it will effect me.
That's faulty reasoning. Murder makes serial killers happy. Playing loud music at night makes my neighbors happy. You can't leave your argument as it stands, a couple more steps might do it.
Murder and playing loud music at night infringe on others rights. Letting two guys marry each other doesn't. Try again.
Which is exactly why I said he's missing a couple steps. Wow, people are so hostile today; I'm on your side and you're attacking me lol. Just trying to help some faulty logic.
Post by
309832
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
165390
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
kattib
eh rebel infer that I meant it shouldnt infringe on anothers pursuit of happiness :P
You so picky when it comes to this
(btw you cant really use the murder example even though I forgot infringe since the set im taking this from includes life :P)
Post by
165390
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
165390
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
438256
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
eh rebel infer that I meant it shouldnt infringe on anothers pursuit of happiness :P
You so picky when it comes to this
(btw you cant really use the murder example even though I forgot infringe since the set im taking this from includes life :P)
Yes, I've very picky when it comes to philosophy/ethics/logic.
To point...What if it infringes upon my happiness if I know two men are legally allowed to "do it"? What if it'll make me happy to cannabalize dead bodies (it's not like it's hurting their happiness)? To take a very extreme example (Please don't twist my words here, I'm just making a hypothetical argument): why isn't someone under 18 allowed to have sex with someone over 18? Yes it might prevent some / a lot of child molestation, but the ones who are doing it of their own free will are being denied the pursuit of happiness.
Essentially what I'm driving at is the misinterpretation of the phrase "pursuit of happiness." You can't take it at its face value. Personally I don't think a phrase like that belongs in the legal realm. But as it's already there, we have to figure out what it really means.
I would argue that "Pursuit of Happiness" is just the Founding Fathers' way of saying "The Common Good" or the Utilitarian principle of the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. I personally am not a fan of Utilitarianism, but it's a system often run hand-in-hand with democracy. But, if that's what's truely meant by "Pursuit of Happiness," then Homosexuality doesn't fall into that category. The greater good dictates that only procreative unions be allowed for the propagation of the populous.
Post by
113229
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
107106
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Deepthought
What if it'll make me happy to cannabalize dead bodies (it's not like it's hurting their happiness)?
Relatives may not like it.
why isn't someone under 18 allowed to have sex with someone over 18? Yes it might prevent some / a lot of child molestation, but the ones who are doing it of their own free will are being denied the pursuit of happiness.
Because that is the age that the law makers of America have determined that a person can make their own decisions on sex. Legally in America, if you have sex and are under 18, you haven't made that choice.
The greater good dictates that only procreative unions be allowed for the propagation of the populous.
It also supports eugenics.
Also, it's not like:
A) You need to be married to have a child
B) All married couples have children
C) By being gay, you somehow reduce the number of procreative marriges.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
What if it'll make me happy to cannabalize dead bodies (it's not like it's hurting their happiness)?
Relatives may not like it.
My relatives don't like gay sex either. It doesn't affect them or their pursuit of happiness and more than knowing your kid is gay.
And secondly, the law is "no eating other people," not "don't eat other people who have relatives who don't want them eaten." If it were the latter there's still plenty to go around.
why isn't someone under 18 allowed to have sex with someone over 18? Yes it might prevent some / a lot of child molestation, but the ones who are doing it of their own free will are being denied the pursuit of happiness.
Because that is the age that the law makers of America have determined that a person can make their own decisions on sex. Legally in America, if you have sex and are under 18, you haven't made that choice.
That answer makes no sense, essentially your saying "they made a law therefore it's right." Law makers in several states have decided that gay marriages shouldn't be allowed, yet you deny that. You totally dodged the point. A 17-year-old citizen has just as much right for the pursuit of happiness as an 18-year-old.
Post by
149406
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
160451
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
452972
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Although if there's one thing I've learnt from the internet, it's that
religious people cannot be reasoned with
, no matter how logical someone's argument is (not saying mine is!).
I'm a practicing, religious Roman Catholic; care to point me to a single one of my posts here that wasn't logical? Don't discount people just because they are religious, just like I don't just discount you because you're not.
Post by
160451
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
160451
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.