• 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!

After DOMA, gay couples still would not receive many federal benefits. [W:345]

Already have.

David...I know, without you stating it again, you have derived at such a prejudice...from your biblical and religious beliefs...regarding the sexual acts between two alike sexes.

But how can you stand in judgment of people whom you have zero relationship with...or don't personally witness their sexual experiences...or see any evidence that their sexual orientation directly impacts the 96% of the population, which appears to be heterosexual?

Sexual orientation isn't contagious.
 
Um, it was already definition by the state.....

No it wasn't. Marriage is defined in how the laws around marriage itself work, not on who may enter into marriage. Who is allowed to legally be recognized as married involves restrictions on entering into marriage, not what marriage actually is.
 
Why are you so adamant on redefining marriage? You can't just change word meanings at will. It doesn't work that way. I believe in the sanctitiy of marriage, yes. Gays do not fit into that mold, yes. Doesn't mean you can redefine marriage and it be ok.

We can make the word mean whatever we want legally, no one has sole authority over what is and is not marriage.

Hell we redefined marriage to allow interracial marriage just 4 decades ago, so yes it is possible to do so. And the various churches, Catholic, and the various protestant churches, Orthadox, Coptic, etc have defined marriage in their own way and have changed their definition at times.

Don't tell me that you can't refine marriage because I will find a dozen different definitions of marriage throughout history.
 
David...I know, without you stating it again, you have derived at such a prejudice...from your biblical and religious beliefs...regarding the sexual acts between two alike sexes.

But how can you stand in judgment of people whom you have zero relationship with...or don't personally witness their sexual experiences...or see any evidence that their sexual orientation directly impacts the 96% of the population, which appears to be heterosexual?

Sexual orientation isn't contagious.

For such a very small percentage you'd think media and advertising could go a day without shoving the behavior in our faces. It's gotten so that a person can't go to the mall or watch TV without getting a frequent sexual education.
 
Then we should allow murder too then, it is immoral, yet you find something wrong with that one....hmmmm...

Murdering someone harms that person (b/c they're dead). Can't say the same for the other thing.
 
Then we should allow murder too then, it is immoral, yet you find something wrong with that one....hmmmm...

Absolute nonsense. When two gays marry non of your rights are violated.
 
Gays have the right to marry in a heterosexual manner.

And if we lived in a Buddhist theocracy, you'd have equal right to worship as everyone else. Doesn't mean you're not being discriminated against.
 
And if we lived in a Buddhist theocracy, you'd have equal right to worship as everyone else. Doesn't mean you're not being discriminated against.

I just don't see how homosexuality is an God-given right.
 
Gays have the right to marry in a heterosexual manner.

And now heterosexuals have the right to have a gay marriage in several states with fed recognition as well.

Although I dont think gays marrying heterosexuals or heterosexuals marrying gays is exactly a recipe for a successful marriage.
 
Back
Top Bottom