Same Sex Marriage Debate (1 Viewer)

Qeru

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2020
Messages
376
Gender
Male
HSC
2021
For sure this is totally true. I even said that. What I’m saying is that I can’t find any research or reason showing that an upbringing with same sex parents has really any negative impact on the child they adopt or anyone else. I’m sure good same sex parents can bring up a child just fine provided they do what good traditional parents do and instil good values.


Sure he believes same sex marriage is a sin however I’m just discussing whether there should be a law preventing same sex marriage not whether it’s immoral. I am against drinking because I don’t like what it does to you but I acknowledge people have the right to drink and am totally cool about my friends & future partner drinking. Ben has said himself that whether or not people believe it’s immoral should not impact its legality. He has said in an interview with Joe Rogan for example how he is against gay marriage personally but not from a secular POV which is what matters in Law making. So I don’t see the issue here.
A lot of laws are based on morality. For example indecent public exposure (especially for women) is seen as immoral by western society and many religions whereas in other cultures its perfectly ok. This law is almost entirely based on 'personal feelings,'' i.e. women should dress modestly.
 

Drdusk

π
Moderator
Joined
Feb 24, 2017
Messages
1,907
Gender
Male
HSC
2018
Uni Grad
2023
A lot of laws are based on morality. For example indecent public exposure (especially for women) is seen as immoral by western society and many religions whereas in other cultures its perfectly ok. This law is almost entirely based on 'personal feelings,'' i.e. women should dress modestly.
Most laws in western countries are certainly not based on morals. I would say it’s rather the opposite. There is usually facts and data that back up laws. The more religion and state have been separated the greater this divide has gotten and countries have become more free. Yes a proportion of laws are based on morals. Look at the end of the day there will always exist outliers to everything no matter what and I acknowledge that.
 

dighead

Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2020
Messages
29
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2000
While many laws are based on facts, there are many that are not and believing otherwise is simply naive. If laws we're enacted purely on facts and data, then smoking should be banned since there are virtually zero benefits, and have the potential to harm others due to passive effects. Russia is planning to ban cigarette sales for people born after a certain year to gradually phase out smoking, but one could hardly call Russia free. In fact, the right to smoke, despite all it's damaging effects, is regarded as a freedom. In the US, many laws are passed after intense lobbying from interest groups. The rich pass laws that allow them to pay minimal tax by sending their profits offshore. The US Republican party pushes through laws that limit who can vote in an attempt to win elections. The NRA aggressively funded and successfully lobbied to pass a law that prohibited any government funding from being used to conduct research onto gun violence. The list goes on.

While many common sense laws are based on facts, they are usually laws that do not infringe on anyone's beliefs, e.g. drink driving. Almost any other law that does not fit into this category (e.g. same sex marriage) is not based on facts, but is based on the agenda of a particular interest group, whether they be religious or political in nature. In the US, the so called "land of the free", many laws are passed from under the table deals. This happens everyday, and they aren't simply outliers. Facts and evidence can only get so far - this isn't science, it's politics. Subjective feelings and personal preferences play a far greater role in many laws that we have today.
 
Last edited:

SylviaB

sorry if i offended anyone
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Messages
6,309
Location
Lidcombe
Gender
Female
HSC
2021
While many laws are based on facts, there are many that are not and believing otherwise is simply naive. If laws we're enacted purely on facts and data, then smoking should be banned since there are virtually zero benefits.
This is moronic. All laws are based on, to varying extents, value judgements. Value judgements do not possess truth value, which is to say, they're not a matter of "facts and judgement". In the case of banning smoking, the value judgement is "The government should pass laws that maximise people's health outcomes, not their personal freedoms". This is not a mater of "facts and data", this is a value judgement. There is no "data" that says that maximising health outcomes is more important than personal freedom. That's a value judgement you're making.

The US Republican party pushes through laws that limit who can vote in an attempt to win elections.
No, they absolutely are not. They are attempting to pass voter ID laws, which means you must be able to prove your identity in order to be able to vote which is hardly unreasonable at all.

The NRA aggressively funded and successfully lobbied to pass a law that prohibited any government funding from being used to conduct research onto gun violence.
Did you actually have any evidence for your claims?

Almost any other law that does not fit into this category (e.g. same sex marriage) is not based on facts, but is based on the agenda of a particular interest group, whether they be religious or political in nature.
Spoiler alert: Neither side of the 'same sex marriage debate' are basing their views on 'facts and data'. They're all basing it off of their own values.

In the US, the so called "land of the free", many laws are passed from under the table deals.
Again, do you have evidence for this?

Facts and evidence can only get so far - this isn't science, it's politics. Subjective feelings and personal preferences play a far greater role in many laws that we have today.
Okay, what should abortion laws be based on "facts and evidence"? Morally speaking, pro-abortionists think abortion isn't murder, anti-abortionists do think it is murder. So, which is it? Can we prove it is or isn't murder? No, it all comes down to a value judgement. Either side can make specific claims that are scientifically invalid, but it cannot be scientifically proven that it is or isn't murder. It all comes down to personhood, and whether a fetus has personhood or not is a value judgement. And this is why people who declare that all laws be based on "facts and evidence" are idiots.
 

willitrue

New Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2020
Messages
25
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
This is everyone's choice; if someone likes it, why should they forbid it? For some countries, same-sex marriage is typical, but for others, it is not. In many countries, the mentality of people is not yet ready for same-sex marriage. For example, in Russia, two gay men holding hands in the street can be beaten up even during the day. In some countries, sex toys are banned, I am 22 years old, and I like to indulge in different toys. I feel that my boyfriend wants to buy everything from this store https://lovermart.com/product/adam-eve-cool-curve-jelly-dong/, but I like it. Our sex has become diverse and unusual. I do not understand how girls can live without 18+ toys.
 
Last edited:

Drdusk

π
Moderator
Joined
Feb 24, 2017
Messages
1,907
Gender
Male
HSC
2018
Uni Grad
2023
aight wb incest
There is actually no factual way at least that I can think of to justify this and I suspect that some day in the future it will become legal in Australia, at least under certain circumstances. Depends on the demand maybe? There are many countries actually where it is legal. Take Japan and South Korea who are doing really well and incest is legal between two consenting adults.

I know that the argument is that it creates children with a higher chance of defects. With that being said I don’t think it’s a strong argument. The chances of having a child after a vasectomy for example is negligible. I guess you can still say that 0.001% is still going to turn out to be a lot of people when you consider whole populations

However what about incest between two consenting gay adults? That has nothing to do with the creation of a child.

I want to see how people justify it. Coz I can’t seem to do it factually. Obviously I personally am disgusted by it.
 

dan964

MOD
Moderator
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
3,253
Location
South of here
Gender
Male
HSC
2014
Uni Grad
2018
There is actually no factual way at least that I can think of to justify this and I suspect that some day in the future it will become legal in Australia, at least under certain circumstances. Depends on the demand maybe? There are many countries actually where it is legal. Take Japan and South Korea who are doing really well and incest is legal between two consenting adults.

I know that the argument is that it creates children with a higher chance of defects. With that being said I don’t think it’s a strong argument. The chances of having a child after a vasectomy for example is negligible. I guess you can still say that 0.001% is still going to turn out to be a lot of people when you consider whole populations

However what about incest between two consenting gay adults? That has nothing to do with the creation of a child.

I want to see how people justify it. Coz I can’t seem to do it factually. Obviously I personally am disgusted by it.
Well one such method of justification not that i agree with it, is to take the approach that you have, show that there is no strong arguments against it.
ergo as follows.
1. There is no strong argument against X
2. People want X to be legalised
3. From (1) and (2) there is no reason why not X should be legalised.

I think in this case, I think the argument against incest, is it undermines familial relations.
 

dan964

MOD
Moderator
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
3,253
Location
South of here
Gender
Male
HSC
2014
Uni Grad
2018
Question: If you support homosexuality and don't support incest are you not contradicting yourself especially if the basis of your argument is if they are not hurting anyone then let them be.
There is to be made a helpful distinction between homosexuality and homosexualism.
Homosexuality: a condition of personal identity in which a person is sexually oriented toward persons of the same sex.
Homosexualism: explicit and overt homosexual practice.

The latter is what a lot of people object to; not the former.
Mind you, since the government doesn't legislate against adultery,ergo it shouldn't do so against homosexualism; even I would disagree with both.

post edit: see my reply on page 21/22 for fleshing out over why Christians make the distinction. (But it should be clear, one is not a choice, and one is).
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 9, 2021
Messages
41
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
There is to be made a helpful distinction between homosexuality and homosexualism.
Homosexuality: a condition of personal identity in which a person is sexually oriented toward persons of the same sex.
Homosexualism: explicit and overt homosexual practice.

The latter is what a lot of people object to; not the former.
Mind you, since the government doesn't legislate against adultery,ergo it shouldn't do so against homosexualism; even I would disagree with both.
Let me rewrite that in the name of the law: Same-sex marriage and incest
 

Queenroot

I complete the Squar3
Joined
Sep 11, 2011
Messages
7,511
Location
My bathtub
Gender
Female
HSC
N/A
There is to be made a helpful distinction between homosexuality and homosexualism.
Homosexuality: a condition of personal identity in which a person is sexually oriented toward persons of the same sex.
Homosexualism: explicit and overt homosexual practice.

The latter is what a lot of people object to; not the former.
Mind you, since the government doesn't legislate against adultery,ergo it shouldn't do so against homosexualism; even I would disagree with both.
what the fuc is a homosexual practice
rlly the only argument against incest is: wtf
kinda gross tbh each to their own tho
 

Drdusk

π
Moderator
Joined
Feb 24, 2017
Messages
1,907
Gender
Male
HSC
2018
Uni Grad
2023
I think in this case, I think the argument against incest, is it undermines familial relations.
That’s a fair point, it might but it might not. Family relations in asian countries like South Korea and Japan are by far much more robust and strict than any western country. Incest being legal as far as I can tell doesn’t seem to have undermined families or society in any way. Additionally now I’m thinking should the government have the right to determine what should be an acceptable family relation and what shouldn’t be. I’m not sure if this is a sufficient enough argument which is why eventually I predict it will become legal if enough people campaign for it.

becareful in 10 years time they'll cancel you for being incestaphobic
Cancelling has actually always been a thing sadly. You look at something like Churches that have throughout history tried to cancel scientific ideas or scientists. Now days it’s just getting out of hand where things that most people consider ridiculous are cancelled. I think most reasonable people are pissed off when people are overly sensitive and rush to cancel anything that they don’t agree with, without even systematically contending with what is being said.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top