• 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!

Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

Sure, and even in the polls where civil unions are mentioned the largest % favor marriage.

Not the 2012 poll introduced by, I believe, Captain Courtesy. Show me a poll (I won't ask for a propensity) where it's so. Where SS partnerships is a viable choice.
 
Last edited:
Not the 2012 poll introduced by, I believe, Captain Courtesy. Show me a poll (I won't ask for a propensity) where it's so. Where SS partnerships is a viable choice.

"Which comes closest to your view? Gay couples should be allowed to legally marry. OR, Gay couples should be allowed to form civil unions but not legally marry. OR, There should be no legal recognition of a gay couple's relationship."

.

Legal
marriage Civil unions No legal
recognition Unsure
% % % %
2/8-13/12

40 23 31 6

Civil Rights
 
There is no SSM in more states than states with SSM.

And in the history of this country, there, at one time, were more states that banned interracial marriage than those that allowed it.
 
Civil unions with all the rights and responsibilities of marriage. For the same reason I wouldn't demand the Boston Red Sox play all their home games in Yankee Stadium.
 
And in the history of this country, there, at one time, were more states that banned interracial marriage than those that allowed it.

And that was wrong. Probably, among other reasons, there wasn't interracial civil unions, either. And if there were, IMO, these interracial unions wouldn't have the R&R of marriage.
 
Last edited:
How you consider yourself right, left, moderate, etc. (almost everyone thinks they're moderate) is relative. Just as how everyone else sees your political beliefs... relative. So if you think someone else's politics are radical or dangerous, just think, they probably think yours is too.

I consider myself a moderate. I suspect many rabid lefties wouldn't.
 
Yes, but there's a third possibility as well, isn't there? Legal SS partnerships.
Your poll records the permissiveness by the American people of gay rights.
This is where the disconnect in these polls occur: people assume permissiveness of gay rights equals SSM.

legal same sex partnership is marriage. Marriage is a civil union.
 
Yes. One can, at least somewhat, exert control over their sexual attractions.

If by "control" you mean repress them or ignore them or otherwise fail to act on them, that is obvious. If by exert control you mean change them, you are wrong, and you've already tried and failed to make that point.
 
Last edited:
Yes. One can, at least somewhat, exert control over their sexual attractions.

But there is no reason that homosexuals should have to just because some do not approve of same sex relationships.
 
But there is no reason that homosexuals should have to just because some do not approve of same sex relationships.

I know for a fact that for many, homosexuality truly is an "alternative lifestyle" and is a rejection of the heterosexual social and relationship model. I've discussed this with homosexuals for years and years and only recently was there a sudden change to the meme because even my homosexual brother in the past has admitted that marriage was a "hetero" institution that wouldn't work and wasn't even a good idea for homosexuals. The hetero model was exactly what they were avoiding....

Now all of a sudden they want to mimic it? You know what... I would actually buy that somewhat for the women. I don't buy it at all for the homosexual men. I expect the following to bear out with time:

1. Homosexual marriages will be much more rare among homosexuals than heterosexual marriages.

2. Homosexual marriages will be much more common among homosexual women than homosexual men.

3. Homosexual divorces will be somewhat higher than heterosexual divorces with the men skewing the numbers while the women probably faring about as well as heterosexuals, in general.

4. Within ten yeas, the homosexual marriage novelty will have worn off and the rate of homosexual marriage will drop to nearly zero with the exceptions being women that want to have kids and men who want to rob their sugar daddies through a divorce court.

Without ObamaCare, I'd have added, AIDS patients that want to put a friend/partner on their insurance at work. There will probably still be some of that "screw the company" reasoning for homosexual marriages, but Obamacare makes it unclear how much of that will happen.
 
I know for a fact that for many, homosexuality truly is an "alternative lifestyle" and is a rejection of the heterosexual social and relationship model. I've discussed this with homosexuals for years and years and only recently was there a sudden change to the meme because even my homosexual brother in the past has admitted that marriage was a "hetero" institution that wouldn't work and wasn't even a good idea for homosexuals. The hetero model was exactly what they were avoiding....

Now all of a sudden they want to mimic it? You know what... I would actually buy that somewhat for the women. I don't buy it at all for the homosexual men. I expect the following to bear out with time:

1. Homosexual marriages will be much more rare among homosexuals than heterosexual marriages.

2. Homosexual marriages will be much more common among homosexual women than homosexual men.

3. Homosexual divorces will be somewhat higher than heterosexual divorces with the men skewing the numbers while the women probably faring about as well as heterosexuals, in general.

4. Within ten yeas, the homosexual marriage novelty will have worn off and the rate of homosexual marriage will drop to nearly zero with the exceptions being women that want to have kids and men who want to rob their sugar daddies through a divorce court.

so homosexuals will treat marriage as flippant as heterosexuals do in ten years?

Maybe some gay can get a divorce faster than Kim kardashian
 
The rate of AIDS being 1 in 5 among homosexual males and I don't think it takes any large stretch of imagination to realize that the expensive treatment and insurance benefits of marriage have something to do with the recent drive to create same-sex marriage options. It's an angle that doesn't get talked about enough.
 
Giving Homosexual marriages may cause more trouble than it is worth. The problem is discrimination and the right to marriage may cause more discrimination as a reaction to the act. The root is education to learning more about homosexual's and trust me there is a lot of discrimination. We need to realize that we are all human and there are difference's which should be respected and channeled.
 
The rate of AIDS being 1 in 5 among homosexual males and I don't think it takes any large stretch of imagination to realize that the expensive treatment and insurance benefits of marriage have something to do with the recent drive to create same-sex marriage options. It's an angle that doesn't get talked about enough.

People want to get married out of love not health insurance.
 
If by "control" you mean repress them or ignore them or otherwise fail to act on them, that is obvious. If by exert control you mean change them, you are wrong, and you've already tried and failed to make that point.

You're aware of male genitals and how they work, yes?
 
People want to get married out of love not health insurance.

Gay marriage was never an issue until the AIDS epidemic and the subsequent issues with "partner benefits". If you are gay then you know the real problem with what I'm saying is that it's one of the dirty little secrets of the LGBT community that has been trying to figure out ways to work through the AIDS crisis and the ensuing difficulties of insurance, medical costs, hospitalization issues, etc. You and I both know there will be a lot of homosexual marriages purely for the sake of insurance, now. 1 in 5. That's a scary number. As much as we know about prevention and it's still 1 in 5 for homosexual males? Insurance is absolutely a part of this discussion and one of the drivers for the "gay marriage" that no one wanted until the aids epidemic came along.
 
Gay marriage was never an issue until the AIDS epidemic and the subsequent issues with "partner benefits". If you are gay then you know the real problem with what I'm saying is that it's one of the dirty little secrets of the LGBT community that has been trying to figure out ways to work through the AIDS crisis and the ensuing difficulties of insurance, medical costs, hospitalization issues, etc. You and I both know there will be a lot of homosexual marriages purely for the sake of insurance, now. 1 in 5. That's a scary number. As much as we know about prevention and it's still 1 in 5 for homosexual males? Insurance is absolutely a part of this discussion and one of the drivers for the "gay marriage" that no one wanted until the aids epidemic came along.

aids has been around since the late 70's long before the push for same sex marriage. it has nothing to do with insurance. other than the same rights to benefits as heteros. it is about equality.
 
People in these debates seem to miss the point and minds seem to be very narrow just AN OBSERVATION
 
Back
Top Bottom