It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Definition: To Desecrate
1 : to violate the sanctity of : profane
2 : to treat disrespectfully, irreverently, or outrageously
...reserving the word "marriage" for religious contexts, and in civil and legal contexts using a uniform concept of civil unions. Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz, for instance, writes that such an arrangement would "strengthen the wall of separation between church and state by placing a sacred institution entirely in the hands of the church while placing a secular institution under state control."
A recent Washington Post/ABC News poll found that 75 percent of respondents supported allowing gays to serve openly in the military, up from 62 percent in 2001 and 44 percent in 1993.
Retired Army Maj. Gen. Vance Coleman, a black man who joined the Army when it was segregated, testified that the current treatment of gays and lesbians is similar to how African-Americans were treated before President Truman integrated the military in 1948.
“Like these once prevalent views, our conventional understanding of marriage must yield to a more contemporary appreciation of the rights entitled to constitutional protection,” Justice Richard N. Palmer wrote for the majority in a 4-to-3 decision that explored the nature of homosexual identity, the history of societal views toward homosexuality and the limits of gay political power compared with that of blacks and women.
“Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same-sex partner of their choice,” Justice Palmer declared. “To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others.”
 My Emphasis
On the one hand it was gay-activist-groups who have been quick to point out religious-oppression throughout the ages, but on the other hand they wish to take part in religious ritual?
Some fear that by removing the foundational pillars of our society (family), we will be heading for the decay of values and decency.
This considered it is wise not to haphazardly throw all of our traditions and values out of the window...but to conserve some of them.
1. What is the main reason you think same-sex-marriage is necessary, regardless of culture and context?
2. Do you agree that civil unions and (non-religious) spiritual-rituals can be just as bonding?
3. Is it correct to say that homosexuals traditionally oppose rigid religious views and traditions?
4. Do you agree that it is a good thing to respect and honor peoples religious values, traditions and rituals?
5. Do you agree that the forces of nature and what has been created through these, have been more efficient, elegant and productive than man up to now?
In the United Kingdom, civil partnerships have identical legal status to a marriage, and partners gain all the same benefits and associated legal rights; ranging from tax exemptions and joint property rights, to next-of-kin status and shared parenting responsibilities. Partnership ceremonies are performed by a marriage registrar in exactly the same manner as a secular civil marriage. Civil unions in New Zealand are identical to British civil partnerships in their association with equivalent spousal rights and responsibilities to full-fledged opposite-sex marriage.
same source as 1
Laws Regarding Same-Sex Partnerships in the United States
Purple: Same-sex marriages
Green: Unions granting rights similar to marriage
Dark Blue: Unions granting limited/enumerated rights
Light Blue: Foreign same-sex marriages recognized
Yellow: Statute bans same-sex marriage
Orange: Constitution bans same-sex marriage
Red: Constitution bans same-sex marriage and other kinds of same-sex unions
SQ#1: What impact would a homosexual marriage in Southern California have on a heterosexual marriage in Northern California?
Are civil rights only relevant to be applied to certain groups of people?
Why do you suppose that it is acceptable in American society to allow the homosexual community to be allowed to risk their lives to protect American rights without the capacity to fully enjoy said freedoms?
Has the American Society not expanded social mores and values in the past to accommodate minority groups? What were the negative results of these 'expansions'?
if it doesn’t have a direct impact on our physical well being, then we do not need to concern ourselves with it.
So this debate isn’t just about whether or not a woman and man couple are the only type of combination allotted for under the term ‘marriage’, but a look at how our society deals with the integration of new social standards as we continue our march towards social equality for all minority groups.
Before addressing some points brought up, allow me to strengthen and add to my argument that it is better for homosexual couples to use another way of bonding than going the traditional religious path.
Skyfloating’s answer to my Socratic Question #1
As a single occurence, none. What does have an impact is when minorities decide over the law in an entire nation or behave in disrespect of the majority.
Equality mustn't mean forcing everyone into agreement.
As languages develop the meaning of words can change over time. This causes confusion and misunderstanding when communicating with other people.
An example would be the word nice. Nice used to be an insult and meant foolish or stupid in the 13th century and it went through many changes right through to the 18th century with meanings like wanton, extravagant, elegant, strange, modest, thin, and shy or coy. Now it means a good & pleasing or thoughtful & kind.
As we saw recently in California, the trend is going more towards civil unions granting homosexuals equal rights rather than allowing the minority to do away with long standing religious tradition.
Should the minority determine the laws of the majority?
1. Would you agree that "the forces of Nature" or "Creation", that have brought about humans, plants, trees, mountains, planets, galaxies, stars...have been, up to now, more efficient, effective and elegant than the forces and efforts of us mere mortals (who have brought about a couple of buildings and cars)?
2. Is the reason that the majority is heterosexual simply because that is our natural biological make-up?
3. What do children and family mean to a healthy society, in your opinion?
4. Do you agree with some activist groups who think we should start teaching our children gay-sex and depicting pictures of gay-marriage and relationships in our schoolbooks?
5. Do you recognize the need for extremists on both sides (violent activists on one, homophobes on the other) to calm down and ease their tensions?
No. While I think it is a relevant point to encourage this type of propaganda in the interest of encouraging tolerance, I do not see a reason to impose this in our school systems just yet.
The continuation of our society.
Though it should be noted that, because the majority is hetero, then many of the ills of our society are attributable to hetero marriages and families.
I hesitantly answer yes, as I understand that both you and I (“our natural…”) are both hetero
No. I think that man and the creation of man is in fact a part of nature and as a result everything that occurs is natural. The forces of nature have not ceased just because mankind has gained the delusion that they are somehow better than the rest of our reality.
Just because civil unions are recognized by some countries as a legal equivalent does not mean that the issue is far from over. I would like to direct attention to the map my opponent displayed above. How many red sates are there? The red states identify those states who won’t even acknowledge the idea of a civil union. Yet my opponent is trying to pass off the idea as a relevant compromise. How is it a compromise if there are American states that still won’t recognize gay partnerships of any kind.
It’s a way to make up for the rejection many of them felt by their hick Christian families, or their meathead peers in school as a child.
But in rejecting civil unions as insufficient, they are revealing their hand — they don’t just want acceptance as they are, they want to mimic heterosexual
Considering how much more in taxes homosexuals pay due to their generally higher incomes when compared with heterosexuals, gay marriage might actually endanger the ability of the groups who hate our guts to get food stamps.
legal marriage should be good enough for those not so desperate for society’s moral approval.
“The fact is, they will hate you even more if you are allowed to get married.”
There is nothing inherent in the marriage of a gay couple that stipulates a desire to disrupt the majority consensus
The fact of the matter is that there is NO impact that a homosexual marriage in Southern California will have on a heterosexual marriage in Northern California.
We are discussing the broadening of the term marriage and allowing the gay community to take part in a tradition that led to their existence in the first place.
Actually, the above quote is incorrect. Ten years ago, there wasn’t a state in America that recognized gay marriage. Today there are two. The ‘trend’ is clearly beginning to incline towards the recognition of gay marriage.
Thank you. May I ask why you agree that its not appropriate? Let me guess: Its disrespectful of the majorities values.
Thank you.Forcefully promoting gay marriage runs counter to this.
Many ills of our society can be attributed to hetero families?
I always thought societies ills are attributed to anomy (loneliness, poverty, alcoholism, crime, apathy).
And this is the true reasoning behind religious warnings going against what has been ordained by nature (or God). And this warning includes promoting the coupling of man-woman rather than promoting the coupling of man-man.
That is precisely why I am arguing that we should work on the civil-union first before talking marriage. One step at a time, right?
…why forcefully push ones agenda beyond what the majority is ready for?
Can you see how the first country to introduce the "soft-drug" of same-sex-marriage, will also become desensitized to "hard drugs" such as Pedophilia?
1995: 13% of all hate crimes were motivated by sexual-orientation bias
2003: 17% of all hate crimes were motivated by sexual-orientation bias
…why forcefully push ones agenda beyond what the majority is ready for?
I believe our "shining example" The Netherlands, has proven, beyond doubt, that liberalism can be taken too far.
1. Are equal rights not enough?
2. Should minorities determine the laws of the majority?
The Texas-based organization - Atticus Circle - is an organization for straight Americans who support gay rights. The group is urging supporters to continue to fight for equality on marriage issues, even as four states have passed ballot measures in the 2008 elections curtailing the rights of gay Americans. The group is particularly concerned for those children with two mothers and two fathers who will be adversely impacted by the new laws. My Emphasis
3. Have The Netherlands taken liberalism too far with their relative tolerance of drugs, euthanasia, pedophilia, etc.?
4. Do you think that the desecration of religious rituals is a "right" we have?
5. Do you agree that true love does not require a marriage-certificate?
05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed...
In Canada, Chris Kempling, a public school teacher and counselor, was cited for professional misconduct and suspended for a month by the BC College of Teachers after he spoke publicly in favor of Christian-based conversion therapy on his own time and referred to homosexuality as a "perversion" associated with "promiscuity" and "immorality"
In Sweden, Åke Green was sentenced to one month of jail for a sermon which preached against homosexuality but ended by saying "We cannot condemn these people."
In England, Harry Hammond was fined £300 in 2001 for violating the harassment, alarm or distress section of the Public Order Act 1986 by staging a street demonstration with signs reading "Stop Immorality", "Stop Homosexuality", and "Stop Lesbianism
Bishop Frederick Henry was the subject of human rights complaints in Canada for editorial he wrote where he stated "Since homosexuality, adultery, prostitution and pornography undermine the foundations of the family, the basis of society, then the State must use its coercive power to ... curtail them in the interests of the common good."
Crystal Dixon was fired from her position as an associate vice president of Human Resources at the University of Toledo for an opinion editorial she wrote against same sex marriage.
Are dysfunctional family lives in heterosexual households preferable to gay marriage?
same as source 1
divorce risks are higher in same-sex marriages than in opposite-sex marriages, and that unions of lesbians are considerably less stable, or more dynamic, than unions of gay men
Are you suggesting, with the above quotes, that after civil unions have become the norm than the logical next step would be the recognition of gay marriage?
SQ #3: How does the ’48 hour’ marriages that result in annulment and the high divorce rate not demean the concept of marriage?
SQ#4: What is there to directly fear from gay marriage?
Are equal rights enough?
Promoting gay marriage does not run counter to the perpetuation of our species. Period. The physical drive for survival and procreation is not at risk by the idea of gay marriage.
Homosexuality is resultant of this nature that you speak of. If man is a product of nature, than the variant types of man are as well a product of nature
And this jump by my opponent is completely off topic. We are discussing the consensual marriage between to healthy and mentally capable adults, not the unconsensual imposition of one human over another.
My opponent is making some really invalid associations here with the fact that gay marriage is going to disrupt family values, disrupt long held religious beliefs and further corrupt society in horrendous ways
What makes people treat each other do disrespectfully? Indoctrination, I suspect. The more charged emotions get, the more likely problems get.
-- Nationwide, 2,475 people were victimized by anti-gay violence, up 10 percent from 2,249 in 1999.
• Percentage of all known perpetrators of hate crimes in 2005 who were white: 60.5%
• Percentage of all known perpetrators of hate crimes in 2005 who were black: 19.9% (Federal Bureau of Investigation) 
We must honour our minority groups by granting them equal rights.
But we must also honour our majority groups and our tradition of man-woman love, sexuality, family and children.
Please take note of how my debate opponent has failed to make any mention of these in a tone of honour and respect.
The first recorded reference to a vending machine is found in the work of Hero of Alexandria, a first-century engineer and mathematician. His machine accepted a coin and then dispensed a fixed amount of holy water.
Conclusion: Homosexuals insisting on their rights is all well and good – but what about our rights to object? Is that not what Freedom of Speech is supposed to protect?
Skyfloatings response to my SQ#2 in the last post
Yes! I am not one of those extremists mentioned. Im open-minded toward the possibility in the Future. But I think I have shown, in detail, why we should first "test-drive" a normalization of homosexuality in our
society through equal-rights civil unions for a few decades. My Emphasis
Skyfloatings response to my SQ#3
It does! And our advocates of moralism, especially christians and muslims, have been critisizing this since decades....for good reason.
The fourth definition of marriage
4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage. 
The wording of this is slightly sinister, as it reminds me of the Dutch Pedo-advocates wording of "a consensual relationship between an adult and a child".
Hence the very valid reason to integrate minorities into our popular society.
people are basing their world view on trivialities…such as sexual orientation.
there is nothing in the allowing of gay marriage that immediately denotes disrespect towards popular values.
archaic attention to religious ideals
SQ#1: Why should there be a relevant social attention to the rights and ideals of religious propagators when religion was based on the trickery of the masses?
There is nothing in this debate that argues the right to object. Freedom of Speech is secured
There is nothing in the debate topic that stipulates a time frame. I will interpret this as a concession to the debate topic that indeed, marriage is not necessarily just between a man and woman.
SQ# 2: Does a gay marriage necessitate that a child will grow up to be homosexual?
SQ# 3: Does the debate topic stipulate a time frame in the recognition of an expansion of the term ‘marriage’ beyond man-woman?
This is only partially correct. The religious do not only resist homosexuality because the Bible or the Koran forbids it, but due to an aversion to that which is perceived as unnatural…
In then listing data on hate-crimes (omitting those perpetuated by his side) the readers focus is re-directed to the extremists rather than the moderate majority… My Emphasis
St Augustine said, "An unjust law in no law at all.' Which means I have a right, even a duty to resist. With violence or civil disobedience. You should pray I choose the latter.
-James Farmer Jr. The Great Debaters
• Because one of the main purposes of marriage is to raise a family and homosexual relationships cannot bear children.
• Because homosexuals could then learn to be confident enough not to need Christians approval or stamp of recognition to live their love.
• Because the same-sex-marriage movement is often directed at antagonizing conservatives and the religious rather than expressing love.
Well, you did ask me what we have to fear from same-sex-marriage directly, and I did show you instances of people loosing their jobs and being jailed simply for objecting to man-man relationships. Equal Rights is one thing - shoving it down our throats by suppressing disagreement another.
Earlier on my opponent went into depth on sex releasing powerful hormones and neurotransmitters inducing the most positive physical state in a human being...and now ones sexual orientation is a triviality?
Both fighters make a strong opening. SF takes the stance that marriage is a sacred religious tradition and that gay “marriage” violates this tradition and is not necessary if civil unions are afforded the same legal rights. MS takes the position that the issue of gay marriage is about societal equality and that modern marriage is as much or more a civil partnership than a purely religious tradition.
SF’s counter that allowing gay marriage would equal the minority imposing their will on the majority is a good gambit, but it is a stretch and ultimately not compelling as MS points out to us that the minority is only asking that majority not impose its will upon them.
SF sticks to his guns on the religious aspect and introduces the scary example of a society which has gone “over the top” with liberalism and suggests that our society will go the same way because gay marriage is a step in that direction. I feel, however, that he takes this analogy too far when equating gay marriage to a drug that will lead us to acceptance of “harder drugs” such as pedophilia.
MS effectively refutes this side trip to the Netherlands and clearly shows us why he feels that the gay community needs marriage for acceptance.
SF loses additional ground when he attempts to claim that gay marriage is merely an act of rebellion or vengeance, thus denigrating the very people whose rights he initially claimed to respect and appreciate. Again, MS effectively counters this claim and shows us that gay marriage is more likely to be about love, and a desire for acceptance and equality.
After some batting back and forth of the same essential issues through Socratic questions and tearing up each other’s points, SF seems to be conceding the point somewhat by suggesting that civil unions are a necessary ”stepping stone” towards the eventual acceptance of gay marriage.
SF picked a stance that I considered difficult to defend from the beginning, and MS effectively used the inherent weakness of the idea that marriage is primarily a sacred religious tradition to advance his position. In modern society the term marriage is as often used to refer to unions which are, in reality, more civil/legal unions or even partnerships of convenience than holy matrimony, and I as well as most readers am well aware of that.
MS’s closing was brilliant and I award him the win, especially since I was initially in favor of SF’s side of the argument and MS convinced me to agree with him before it was over.
Decision: Skyfloating wins.
This debate was an unfortunate example of two skilled debaters playing footsie with their galoshes on. We can blame this on the moderator's choice of wording of the topic, presumably a failed attempt to encourage a polarized and divisive performance.
Skyfloating had the catbird seat; the position he was assigned was clear, and he argued consistently though somewhat conservatively thoughout. The phrasing of the topic gave MemoryShock several choices. Among them, argue that in law, marriage is the same as civil union and should be treated equally (a semantic approach), or commit to the con side and argue that homosexual civil union is unnatural and unacceptable, and should not be condoned by society.
While the latter stance would have been risky, it could have provided ammunition for undermining much of Skyfloating's case. Perhaps wisely, as I don't believe his heart would have been in such a stance, MemoryShock opted for the safe route, narrowing the case he could present to avoid attackable contradiction.
This turned the debate into a quest for the middle ground of reasonable compromise. Neither fighter argued strongly about the validity of the conservative public's views on homosexual union, expressing morality in secular law, or whether any legal framework establishing social norms can be consistently fair and just.
Skyfloating brought his argument to the reader in the form of pragmatic example of majority beliefs, and extolled mutual respect. MemoryShock allowed his argument to be undermined rather early, describing "marriage" as term with evolving meaning that might someday be considered equivalent to "civil union". Skyfloating effectively used this to solidify his position, highlighting the very different meaning people currently give to those terms.
By the middle of the debate, Skyfloating had comfortably established his position, and was looking to claim the middle ground as his own, too. MemoryShock's tactic of declaring civil union distinct and unacceptable was eventually unconvincing, as Skyfloating by that point had managed to fold civil rights arguments into his case, effectively diluting MemoryShock's excellent rhetoric.
Skyfloating's point-by-point closing statement sealed the deal, and I must give him the win, on consistency and effective defense of position. I am not happy about this decision, as I feel that were the position assignments reversed, I would be handing the win to MemoryShock instead.
Challenge Match: Skyfloating vs MemoryShock: "I say ""I Do"" To Prop 8" (Sky Vs MS - for the sake of expediency I will refer to both fighters as "he" my apologies for any gender confusion)
An excellent debate, and one that would have been worthy of a tournament final, between two seasoned, eloquent and outstanding fighters.
Sky started well, and made a strong opening, apart from his ill advised assertion that gay marriage could kill off humanity. That aside, his opening was very strong, and he continued in the same vein throughout the debate, refusing to let MS distract him.
Sky stuck to his guns, and despite some peculiar analogies (such as the netherlands) was able to fend off some strong attacks by MS.
Sky remained proactive throughout the debate and was not hoodwinked into reacting and therefore playing his opponents game.
Some good sources and philosophical references made for a very good position and he was able to maintain this.
Sky's use of rhetoric was outstanding, but his use of images to try and make a point was a little unfortunate.
As the debate went on, Sky seemed to run out of idea's a little, and began to repeat some points - but still managed to retain his composure in the face of some very heavy pressure, until ending with some very good, but rather easily refuted points.
MS made a good opening and matched sky's for strength, but failed somewhat to capitalize on the weak points, which could have then set the tone for the debate.
This was an unusual slip, but one that did not affect him, as he set about making a superb case for his position, with excellent use of rhetoric, logical argument and good sources.
Although MS was unable to exert complete control over the debate, he was able to guide it in a direction he wanted it to go - this is a tribute to Sky's debating skills that he did not allow MS to completely set the terms.
MS exerted fearsome pressure and was able to squeeze Sky into making some rash comments and arguments, although this did not mean he set the terms or controlled the debate.
In answer to some of Sky's points regarding influencing children, I would have liked to have seen MS focus a little more on the phenomenon of curiosity in teenagers and how it has been shown that it doesn't affect their orientation.
I would also like to have seen a focus on historical evidence which shows that same sex marriage is not a modern idea.
However, this aside, I have to give this one to MemoryShock by a very small margin, simply due to his better use of rhetoric and logical reasoning, as well as a very strong closing.
This one really could have gone either way, and it's a tribute to both fighters as they showed outstanding debate skills and technique.