• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gay marriage in Washington state: 279 licenses in first six hours

And again, I'm not the only person who shared that opinion, but you're only targeting me because the other person who said that is Progressive.

This means your post is just to attack a Conservative any way you can, that the argument you use to attack the Conservative is irrelevant, and thus dishonest and not to be taken at face value.

You want to argue against a Conservative just so that you can be seen arguing against a Conservative. You're 'grandstanding'.

You claim to want to find "common ground." I'm open to that.

But begin with questions. Not assumptions.
 
Does gay marriage affect marriage or divorce rates? - Slate Magazine

This at least shows overall divorce rates in states with legal gay marriage; but as I said, I've found no source that actually has a complete study. The 1% comes from something I read on wikipedia, but I don't necessarily put too much clout in that, and even that said "estimate", so I was just saying what it said. But, as you'll note - I wasn't asserting it to be fact.
I love how you have no source material. I'm not asking for it, I'm just noting that you like to make claims without sourcing where you got your information, meaning you just made it up as you made your post. It's good to know for future discussions, I know what quality of debate you want to have.
I don't care about your source because I'm not having that argument. You like to make claims without sourcing them, and if challenged you will do a quick Google search, but that doesn't change the fact that you spoke from bias, offering evidence only when called on your bias.
 
You claim to want to find "common ground." I'm open to that.

But begin with questions. Not assumptions.
You write your posts, I'll write mine. If you don't like what I write, don't read it, and I'll do the same.
 
The legalization of marijuana, as of this morning, as well.

Ah, well, needless to say, I don't agree. An increase in the number of happily married couples is a good thing and the marijuana issue is an "oh well" at best at this point.
 
I think God is very proud of Washington! As he should be!
 
I think it's a little to late for that....years to late.

There are 2 silver linings I see here, though, even while the Left doesn't care that 1/2 of these families will fail:
  1. Military members can load their same-sex partner into DEERS, thus giving that serviceman a small raise and their partner access to one of the best health insurance programs in the US.
  2. The Left in DC have one less thing to make slogans about, and the more the Left shuts up, the better.

Yes talk about a silver lining indeed, "I may have lost this argument, but at least I don't have to hear your argument" is kind of a bizarre way of looking at. Also what makes you think that gay marriage supporters, or those on the left, don't care if half of their marriages eventually fail in the future? What makes you think that gay marriage supporters don't wish everyone a happy marriage because we aren't assholes?

And even if 50% of them should fail, hell even if every single damn one fails that doesn't mean homosexuals don't have the same rights to get married and try to make their lives better just like every other damn person does when they marry.
 
What makes you think that gay marriage supporters don't wish everyone a happy marriage []?
Because over the last 7 years, when I confronted many pro-ssm on this forum about it, pro-ssm told me they didn't care about the divorce rate, they just wanted the money. Time and time again, thread after thread, year after year, pro-ssm said they didn't care. That's how I know, they told me so.

Well, now they got what they want, so again: Welcome to the 50% divorce rate :2wave:
 
Because over the last 7 years, when I confronted many pro-ssm on this forum about it, pro-ssm told me they didn't care about the divorce rate, they just wanted the money. Time and time again, thread after thread, year after year, pro-ssm said they didn't care. That's how I know, they told me so.

Well, now they got what they want, so again: Welcome to the 50% divorce rate :2wave:

This is a learning experience, don't use generalizations, no one here is saying that. Why do you keep going on about the 50% divorce rate? It has nothing to do with people having the right to marry and to attempt to make a marriage work, like everyone else does...

Are you saying I'm actually doing gay people a disservice by putting them in a position where they will now be getting divorces?
 
Last edited:
This is a learning experience, don't use generalizations, no one here is saying that. Why do you keep going on about the 50% divorce rate? It has nothing to do with people having the right to marry and to attempt to make a marriage work, like everyone else does...

Are you saying I'm actually doing gay people a disservice by putting them in a position where they will now being getting divorces?

Using logic against an emotional argument, how unfair!
 
Why do you keep going on about the 50% divorce rate?
Divorce is the only way other people's unions damage me. It behooves me and every other citizen to promote healthy unions, and that's accomplished by helping couples avoid the leading causes for divorce so that they stay happily married with loving, stable homes. Beyond that, ssm doesn't effect me and I have no interest in the topic.

Are you saying I'm actually doing gay people a disservice by putting them in a position where they will now being getting divorces?
Yes, you are setting them up for failure.

IMO there should be a broad marital health and equality act, where, yes, same-sex couples are accepted into the fold, and where all couples have to participate in personal and financial pre-marital counseling. I would even go so far as to specifically allow polygamy up to groups of 4 (to be inclusive of both Native Americans and Muslims). You have to learn a basic level of skill before you're allowed to drive. In most states you have to learn a basic level of familiarity before you can hunt or own a gun. I'm saying that every couple should have to learn how to, frankly, conduct their lives together, before marrying. Pre-marital counseling clears up a lot of communication and money problems, so it would drastically reduce the divorce rate, thus reducing the harm onto you and me.

And no, pre-marital counseling is not a cure-all. There will a % of unions which can pass any counseling and still fall apart. But many more can be saved then who fall through the cracks.

My problem with the modern pro-ssm political movement (as distinguished from 2 real people of the same sex who wish to marry) has less to do with the genitalia involved and more to do with ignoring existing problems.
 
Last edited:
Divorce is the only way other people's unions damage me. It behooves me and every other citizen to promote healthy unions, and that's accomplished by helping couples avoid the leading causes for divorce so that they stay happily married with loving, stable homes. Beyond that, ssm doesn't effect me and I have no interest in the topic.


Yes, you are setting them up for failure.

IMO there should be a broad marital health and equality act, where, yes, same-sex couples are accepted into the fold, and where all couples have to participate in personal and financial pre-marital counseling. I would even go so far as to specifically allow polygamy up to 4 wives (to be inclusive of both Native Americans and Muslims). You have to learn a basic level of skill before you're allowed to drive. In most states you have to learn a basic level of familiarity before you can hunt or own a gun. I'm saying that every couple should have to learn how to, frankly, conduct their lives together, before marrying. Pre-marital counseling clears up a lot of communication and money problems, so it would drastically reduce the divorce rate, thus reducing the harm onto you and me.

And no, pre-marital counseling is not a cure-all. There will a % of unions which can pass any counseling and still fall apart. But many more can be saved then who fall through the cracks.

My problem with the modern pro-ssm political movement (as distinguished from 2 real people of the same sex who wish to marry) has less to do with the genitalia involved and more to do with ignoring existing problems.

I assume then that you support banning all marriage until you can get this program start then right? I mean if you don't support allowing gay marriage because they may on average end in divorce 50% of the time, then why allow heterosexual marriage that also ends in divorce 50% of the time? And might I mention that hetrosexuals being what they are tend to have more children than homosexuals, including natural and adoptive means of acquiring a child, therefore they are an even bigger risk to your interests as a citizen.

Also I made an assumption about how divorces effect you as an individual, but seriously how the hell does divorce effect you as an individual?
 
I'm happy to hear this, but not surprised. When California legalized gay marriage, there were thousands of SSM certificates taken out... until the whole thing was shut down by a judge when the anti-SSM folks filed an appeal.

It's been a long, arduous process trying to reinstate California's SSM law. I hope that Washington makes the transition much more quickly and painlessly. Congratulations to all the soon-to-be-married SSM couples in Washington State! :)
 
....implying my argument is emotional...project much?

It is emotional. Divorce rates and SSM are two entirely separate issues. The only reason to put them together is to create an emotional appeal.
 
It is emotional. Divorce rates and SSM are two entirely separate issues. The only reason to put them together is to create an emotional appeal.

Its like saying we shouldn't have freed the slaves because it just led to unemployment as some couldn't find a job.
 
I assume then that you support banning all marriage until you can get this program start then right?
Why go through the extra steps and delay in passing legislation to ban marriage when we can just cut to the chase and require pre-marital counseling for everyone?

I mean if you don't support allowing gay marriage because they may on average end in divorce 50% of the time, then why allow heterosexual marriage that also ends in divorce 50% of the time?
I'm not terribly turned off at the idea of eliminating marriage if half will fail anyway. IMO either **** or get off the pot, fix the problem or shut it down. I'd rather fix the problem, but don't think a threat to get rid of marriage will denture me because I'm not to far away from that already; you can't divorce if you never marry, and many countries have stable couples without ever legally marrying.

And might I mention that hetrosexuals being what they are tend to have more children than homosexuals, including natural and adoptive means of acquiring a child, therefore they are an even bigger risk to your interests as a citizen.
Many gays have children also, please don't discriminate against them. We need to exercise equality by being inclusive. "Marriage" is "marriage" regardless if they're a mixed race, same race, different religions, same sex, etc. Everyone faces the same basic, predictable, preventable problems.

Also I made an assumption about how divorces effect you as an individual, but seriously how the hell does divorce effect you as an individual?
Someone else's divorce harms me especially when there's children involved because those children are much more likely to commit juvenile crime. It may be my car that gets keyed or mailbox broken. Getting older, these children may face the business end of my .38 should they try to mug me. These children are also more likely to be pregnant teens looking for abortions, so promoting healthy families is one way of reducing the rate of unwanted pregnancy and abortion.

There are many ways divorce affects those not directly involved, but you're just checking he perimeter of my argument for weaknesses, so I'll stop there.
 
It is emotional. Divorce rates and SSM are two entirely separate issues. The only reason to put them together is to create an emotional appeal.
I know my motivations, so if you see it differently, I'll respect your opinion.
 
Its like saying we shouldn't have freed the slaves because it just led to unemployment as some couldn't find a job.
Exept gays were never slaves. In slavery, gays were equal. If you were a black gay, you were a slave regardless. If you were a white gay who owned land, you had many freedoms regardless.

I think many black people get offended when gays compare themselves to black-suffrage, which is why so many Blacks voted against ssm right after voting for Obama in the 2008 election.
 
I know my motivations, so if you see it differently, I'll respect your opinion.

I know your motivations to. Divorce rate and marriage rights are seperate issues. They stand or fall on their own merits. The two are not in any way related except in both dealing on some level as marriage. You have had this pointed out to you many times, and yet you still misrepresent what people have told you on this.
 
I know your motivations to. Divorce rate and marriage rights are seperate issues. They stand or fall on their own merits. The two are not in any way related except in both dealing on some level as marriage. You have had this pointed out to you many times, and yet you still misrepresent what people have told you on this.
I see marrying and divorcing as the same issue because they are both actions taken under the same contract. Just as marrying should first require reasonable preventive medicine, so should divorce first require reasonable preventive medicine, and for the exact same reasons. I understand and respect that you have a different opinion, but I have no intention to participate in a pissing contest over it, so consider yourself the winner.
 
Why go through the extra steps and delay in passing legislation to ban marriage when we can just cut to the chase and require pre-marital counseling for everyone?


I'm not terribly turned off at the idea of eliminating marriage if half will fail anyway. IMO either **** or get off the pot, fix the problem or shut it down. I'd rather fix the problem, but don't think a threat to get rid of marriage will denture me because I'm not to far away from that already; you can't divorce if you never marry, and many countries have stable couples without ever legally marrying.


Many gays have children also, please don't discriminate against them. We need to exercise equality by being inclusive. "Marriage" is "marriage" regardless if they're a mixed race, same race, different religions, same sex, etc. Everyone faces the same basic, predictable, preventable problems.


Someone else's divorce harms me especially when there's children involved because those children are much more likely to commit juvenile crime. It may be my car that gets keyed or mailbox broken. Getting older, these children may face the business end of my .38 should they try to mug me. These children are also more likely to be pregnant teens looking for abortions, so promoting healthy families is one way of reducing the rate of unwanted pregnancy and abortion.

There are many ways divorce affects those not directly involved, but you're just checking he perimeter of my argument for weaknesses, so I'll stop there.

Well heterosexual couples have more children in the sense that because there are so many more heterosexual couples than gay couples of course they have a lot more, therefore if we got rid of heterosexual marriage there would be a lot less divorces overall than getting rid of SSM even if the rate of divorce for the two is the same.

Also, I prefer government out of my personnel life. Its ridiculous how you want the government to have little to no gun control but literally want them to coach everyone on how to conduct their marriages. How about you be a conservative and tell the government to shove it.
 
Well heterosexual couples have more children in the sense that because there are so many more heterosexual couples than gay couples of course they have a lot more, therefore if we got rid of heterosexual marriage there would be a lot less divorces overall than getting rid of SSM even if the rate of divorce for the two is the same.

Also, I prefer government out of my personnel life.
Its ridiculous how you want the government to have little to no gun control but literally want them to coach everyone on how to conduct their marriages. How about you be a conservative and tell the government to shove it.
I hear you, that's why I'm not far from just saying 'shut it down'. If you don't need a permit to carry a gun then why should need a license to marry? That was just don to track taxes anyway.

The other side of the coin is, if one state's marriage license is good in every state, then my CCW should also be good in every state.

A little consistency is all I ask for.
 
And again, I'm not the only person who shared that opinion, but you're only targeting me because the other person who said that is Progressive.

This means your post is just to attack a Conservative any way you can, that the argument you use to attack the Conservative is irrelevant, and thus dishonest and not to be taken at face value.

You want to argue against a Conservative just so that you can be seen arguing against a Conservative. You're 'grandstanding'. Win or lose the argument itself, you win just by having the argument because it will get you personal sympathy from your side. The Taliban does the same thing when a lone gunman lets off a few rounds from his house and then flees. His goal wasn't to nuke the convoy or even cause damage. His goal was just to be seen shooting at Americans. It's political. It's propaganda.

Likewise the whole fight over ssm is not to actually improve the marital institution or American lives, it's for the Left just to be seen as sticking up for a voting block, even while nothing is accomplished.

This is why the GOP lost the election, because the Right is focused on results while the Left is focused on appearance.

No, you were pretty rude. Stop trying to pretend you were just being like other people. you have a thing against gays, and now you are trying to be condescending saying you were not obnoxious. You flat out said gays do not hold their marriage as sacred and tied in the most common conservative christian insult. No one buys it, and you really need to take some responsibility for it. If you don't like gay marriage that is your choice, but don't pretend to be on their side while insulting them.
 
No, you were pretty rude. Stop trying to pretend you were just being like other people. you have a thing against gays, and now you are trying to be condescending saying you were not obnoxious. You flat out said gays do not hold their marriage as sacred and tied in the most common conservative christian insult. No one buys it, and you really need to take some responsibility for it. If you don't like gay marriage that is your choice, but don't pretend to be on their side while insulting them.
I'm sorry you feel that way. The issue of SSM meets many people who are more sensitive than others. I suppose I grew a thicker skin over time.
 
Back
Top Bottom