• 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!

Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

"Incest is illegal in every state. Sodomy is not illegal. As such, your argument is ridiculous and makes you look the same. "

Why should it be between consenting adults. An please, don't give that old it causes health issues. So does drinking, smoking, over eating and drugs.
 
Your argument is both factually and historically inaccurate...but meh...it doesn't seem like you are arguing for the sake of truth.

Okay, well then name any country in history, any society, that has defined marriage other than between man and woman (sometimes women). Show your stuff and prove the inaccuracy.
 
You're all over the map. When it suits you you're not after equality and then you are (that's what equal "rights and protections" are). You aren't after social acceptance, then you are - that's what wanting SSM to be accepted by society is.

You say that civil unions now don't offer the same rights and protections, but when I ask you why "your side" has never sought that, you say it's impossible to do. Where clearly it IS possible with simple legislation. It was more possible federally before DOMA, but when I say DOMA was a reaction to your side's overreach, you deny that. But still possible.

You SAY you don't need the title, but here you are threatening to take your toys and move to another country if you can't have the title. Which is it?

If civil unions with all the same rights and protections of marriage were established for same sex couples nationwide then I would be content. I would not care about the title of "marriage" because I could call it whatever I wanted, and I wouldn't care if the title was reserved for heterosexual couples.

However, I know that will never happen. I have debated with people on "your side" who vehemently argue any form of civil union is just marriage by another name, even those which have limited rights and protections.

I could care less about the ideological arguments of equality. I want a husband and children. I want to know that if anything happens to me, that my children and husband will be taken care of just as if I were married to a wife. I want the opportunity to build a relationship with all the stability of a heterosexually married couple so that my children will all the greatest opportunity to thrive. I can do that with marriage or with civil unions with all the rights of marriage. The title is irrelevant.

Go to a conservative forum and argue your case, and then see if your "solution" is really realistic. Just try it. I think you are the one with the blinders on.
 
Okay, well then name any country in history, any society, that has defined marriage other than between man and woman (sometimes women). Show your stuff and prove the inaccuracy.

As I said before. Two different Roman emperors have married men. The Romans even passed a law banning the practice of same sex marriage as Christianity became prevalent. Why would they pass a law for a practice unless it was being practiced?

In fact, same sex marriage between women was not uncommon in parts of Asia and South America before Christianity spread to those parts.

Hell, you can find that basic kind of stuff out on wikipedia for crying out loud. It isn't hard, you just have no interest in doing so because you don't care about the truth.

History of same-sex unions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
"Incest is illegal in every state. Sodomy is not illegal. As such, your argument is ridiculous and makes you look the same. "

Why should it be between consenting adults. An please, don't give that old it causes health issues. So does drinking, smoking, over eating and drugs.

Are you advocating for making incest legal?
 
Are you advocating for making incest legal?

Why not? After all, the base line is 'consenting adults'. Surely, you would have no problem with it, right? We're looking for the truth here, correct?
 
Gay Marriage isn't real marriage

It's pretend marriage

Marriage has never meant anything other than man + woman. Not my problem you are unable to deal with facts so you're reduced to beclowning yourself with emotional histrionics

That is true and the participants in gay marriage will never be mainstreamed, regardless of the endless hate they spew at others and at the religious faith of others.
 
If civil unions with all the same rights and protections of marriage were established for same sex couples nationwide then I would be content. I would not care about the title of "marriage" because I could call it whatever I wanted, and I wouldn't care if the title was reserved for heterosexual couples.

Cool, two questions then:
Why are you arguing with me who supports exactly that?
Why haven't they ever gone for that through the initiative process available in half the states with a couple more allowing direct state constitutional amendment?

However, I know that will never happen. I have debated with people on "your side" who vehemently argue any form of civil union is just marriage by another name, even those which have limited rights and protections.

Well, it probably won't happen now that you've driven a whole raft of people who would support such civil unions over to the other "side". I know there's people on my side of this issue who don't want homosexual partners to have any of the benefits, but you're not talking with them, you've been discussing this with me.

I could care less about the ideological arguments of equality. I want a husband and children. I want to know that if anything happens to me, that my children and husband will be taken care of just as if I were married to a wife. I want the opportunity to build a relationship with all the stability of a heterosexually married couple so that my children will all the greatest opportunity to thrive. I can do that with marriage or with civil unions with all the rights of marriage. The title is irrelevant.

Then we are on the exact same page on this part of the issue. I'm all for good families and stability.

Go to a conservative forum and argue your case, and then see if your "solution" is really realistic. Just try it. I think you are the one with the blinders on.

I've been a member of more conservative forums and more liberal ones. The results of that question vary accordingly in their reflexive bias - the liberal one's taking the inane equal but separate argument against civil unions and for SSM, the conservative ones taking the position that homosexuals get neither. But the centrists on both are where I'm at = civil unions with same benefits as marriage.
 
Last edited:
That is true and the participants in gay marriage will never be mainstreamed, regardless of the endless hate they spew at others and at the religious faith of others.

gays hate teh others ?
 
As I said before. Two different Roman emperors have married men. The Romans even passed a law banning the practice of same sex marriage as Christianity became prevalent. Why would they pass a law for a practice unless it was being practiced?

In fact, same sex marriage between women was not uncommon in parts of Asia and South America before Christianity spread to those parts.

Hell, you can find that basic kind of stuff out on wikipedia for crying out loud. It isn't hard, you just have no interest in doing so because you don't care about the truth.

History of same-sex unions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These unions were never called marriage, even where in the same culture marriage existed. That's a fail.
 
Cool, two questions then:
Why are you arguing with me who supports exactly that?
Why haven't they ever gone for that through the initiative process available in half the states with a couple more allowing direct state constitutional amendment?



Well, it probably won't happen now that you've driven a whole raft of people who would support such civil unions over to the other "side". I know there's people on my side of this issue who don't want homosexual partners to have any of the benefits, but you're not talking with them, you've been discussing this with me.



Then we are on the exact same page on this part of the issue. I'm all for good families and stability.



I've been a member of more conservative forums and more liberal ones. The results of that question vary accordingly in their reflexive bias - the liberal one's taking the inane equal but separate argument against civil unions and for SSM, the conservative ones taking the position that homosexuals get neither. But the centrists on both are where I'm at = civil unions with same benefits as marriage.

I'm not a centrist. I'm a libertarian. If I could have my ideal it would be government getting entirely out of marriage. However, before I am a libertarian I am a pragmatist and realist. That is why I have the position I have at this time. If your option ever becomes viable then I will not be opposed to it.
 
These unions were never called marriage, even where in the same culture marriage existed. That's a fail.

Sigh...I proved my point and you ignored it. That is a fail on you because you didn't like that you were wrong.

All this talk about other people's bias, but when confronted with your own, you run and hide. Pathetic.
 
Why not? After all, the base line is 'consenting adults'. Surely, you would have no problem with it, right? We're looking for the truth here, correct?

Start a thread on it and I will comment. This is not the appropriate place to debate incest, but if you want to advocate for it I will provide my rational for why I oppose it.
 
Incest is illegal in every state. Sodomy is not illegal. As such, your argument is ridiculous and makes you look the same.

Furthermore, why would a father and son even want to marry? That would keep them from being able to marry when they found a partner they loved. It also doesn't make sense because marriage basically establishes "next of kin" status. If you are already kin then why would you need the rights and protections of marriage? Your argument shows you have an extremely poor understanding of what marriage is and what it does.

A father marrying his son is not incest

Incest only applies to producing offspring. What if a father wanted to marry his son for the "security of marriage" and benefits? Would you be a bigot and infringe on their "right to marry"?

What if 2 sisters wanted to marry each other? 2 brothers? Would you deny them their "right" to equality?

Start a thread on it and I will comment. This is not the appropriate place to debate incest, but if you want to advocate for it I will provide my rational for why I oppose it.

A father marrying his adult son is not incest. They don't product offspring through sex which is the point of incest laws. Try again.
 
Never said they should, just said that is how the African American Civil Rights Movement gain widespread respect, they earned it, did the hard work, and most saw that they were correct and deserving.

And no, I do not think marriage for same sexes is good for society short or long term...

Yeah, they should not have had to earn it through horrible abuses. It should have been theirs to begin with and you just want the gays to get beaten on for your amusement.
 
Or any more than a man marrying a woman is a right.

Exactly

Marriage is not a "Civil Right"

Glad we finally agree on something
 
Exactly

Marriage is not a "Civil Right"

Glad we finally agree on something

As long as the government has a contract involved with it then it is a part of civil rights. Also where i would love for the government to get out of the love business it does have a purpose in being involved in litigating civil matters like the breaking up of partners, or even in the establishment of legal responsibilities in partnerships for decision making purposes on death and incapacitating injury. As long as we have partnership contracts with legal responsibilities the government will have a reason to hear complaints in court. Yes, those are rights we have in civil courts which gays should also have as long as everyone else does.

But don't let that stop your bigotry.
 
As long as the government has a contract involved with it then it is a part of civil rights. Also where i would love for the government to get out of the love business it does have a purpose in being involved in litigating civil matters like the breaking up of partners, or even in the establishment of legal responsibilities in partnerships for decision making purposes on death and incapacitating injury. As long as we have partnership contracts with legal responsibilities the government will have a reason to hear complaints in court. Yes, those are rights we have in civil courts which gays should also have as long as everyone else does.

But don't let that stop your bigotry.

The bigot card when you can't refute facts doesn't interest me. That's a lazy copout.

By everyone else do you also mean sisters marrying sisters. Brothers marrying Brothers. Fathers marrying adult children ect? Those would be considered "partnership contracts" too.

Equal protection under the law is a civil right

So anyone should be able to change the definition of marriage and "marry" to fit their sexual behaviors. Got it
 
The bigot card when you can't refute facts doesn't interest me. That's a lazy copout.

By everyone else do you also mean sisters marrying sisters. Brothers marrying Brothers. Fathers marrying adult children ect? Those would be considered "partnership contracts" too.
you didnt present any facts though LMAO

marriage is a right :shrug:
 
The bigot card when you can't refute facts doesn't interest me. That's a lazy copout.

Actually, I did refute you before that, but next time feel free to cut that part of the quote out it will make you seem a little more reliable.
By everyone else do you also mean sisters marrying sisters. Brothers marrying Brothers. Fathers marrying adult children ect? Those would be considered "partnership contracts" too.

Like always you delve into absurdity when you decide to go somewhere. I do however, agree that family members should be allowed special legal responsibilities like shared health care, legal decision making in the case of injury, hospital visitation rights, shared wealth and inheritance, and most of the things a marriage contract legally deals with. Oh, and yes family members already have methods of having those partnerships in a legal sense. What you are talking about stopping is sexual relations which the marriage contract actually does little about considering you are allowed to have sexual relations without a marriage contract, but yet things like sex with a child are illegal no matter what. So you are arguing a completely different point and laws that do not connect with each other. Being married does not make sex automatically legal considering you can have a rape of a spouse.

So do you have any real points, or are we just going to hear more about you not being a bigot.
 
It was more possible federally before DOMA, but when I say DOMA was a reaction to your side's overreach, you deny that.


It wasn't reaction to overreach; it was reaction, period. As in, by reactionaries.
 
it should be astonishing how many of you who talk so much and really do care so much don't know

with all due respect, you really need to read more and talk less

Or, ignore things like this that do not directly affect us, while focusing on more important domestic issues..
 
Back
Top Bottom