• 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!

On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long [W:29, 210]

Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

Before marriage became a legal institution, it still existed. Who says that two men or two women living together in Greece, Rome, Asia, etc. were not married by their own local customs? Jumping the broom, hand fasting, tying the hands together were accepted "marriage" ceremonies of many societies... It was not until organized religion put fear into the hearts and minds of the populace, that it went underground--or into the closet...
Well, I think one ...or two rather, should jump the broom, hand fast away... nobody is stopping them. Just do not expect it to be recognized by society. Nobody cares if you do that.
 
Scientists have already said it is caused by epigenetics. Even if they are wrong it is extremely unlikely there is a gay gene, but more likely it's caused from a mutation in a gene. You're free to blast this post if you want, but doing a five second search will tell you I'm right and that scientists agree with me on the likely genetic connection if there is one.

See, Henrin, I AGREE that there is probably no gay gene. I never argue from that position. Scientists tend to agree that sexual orientation is caused by genetics (including epigenetics), bio-chemistry, hormones, environmental factors, or some combination. The point that I am making is that just because on gay gene has been found, doesn't mean that a specific gene that causes sexual orientation doesn't exist. We don't know. Because of this, Bronson's presentation is false.
 

Seriously?

Many states don't recognize them at all. The Federal government doesn't recognize civil unions. Literally thousands of laws exist regarding marriage that do not mention, and therefore do not affect, civil unions. Even in states that attempt to make them equal in every way, they're not. Because you can't bring a civil union to other states, the Feds don't recognize them, and in practice there's a million different forms or procedures where people will ask you if you're married, and you aren't. (like, some gay couples with a legal, recognized civil union in the state that issued it still ran into troubles at the hospital regarding visitation rights)

Civil unions are not treated equally under the law. Not even remotely close. And let's say we fixed that, let's say they were. Let's say we made a separate but equal status. You don't see the issue?
 
Seriously?

Many states don't recognize them at all. The Federal government doesn't recognize civil unions. Literally thousands of laws exist regarding marriage that do not mention, and therefore do not affect, civil unions. Even in states that attempt to make them equal in every way, they're not. Because you can't bring a civil union to other states, the Feds don't recognize them, and in practice there's a million different forms or procedures where people will ask you if you're married, and you aren't. (like, some gay couples with a legal, recognized civil union in the state that issued it still ran into troubles at the hospital regarding visitation rights)

Civil unions are not treated equally under the law. Not even remotely close. And let's say we fixed that, let's say they were. Let's say we made a separate but equal status. You don't see the issue?

I think that the block lgbt is running into is that many consider "marriage" a religious rite.
 
I think that the block lgbt is running into is that many consider "marriage" a religious rite.

I would agree to some extent. Which is why my position would be to eliminate the word marriage altogether and call any and all unions that are governmentally sanctioned, civil unions. Gay, straight, whatever. Same name, same rights. Then, if you are "united" in a religious ceremony, you can use the term "marriage". It fits since the term civil union meets the government definition very well.
 
I would agree to some extent. Which is why my position would be to eliminate the word marriage altogether and call any and all unions that are governmentally sanctioned, civil unions. Gay, straight, whatever. Same name, same rights. Then, if you are "united" in a religious ceremony, you can use the term "marriage". It fits since the term civil union meets the government definition very well.

I think that is a way to do it, maybe the only uncontroversial way.
 
It could be a business



They shouldn't be forced to participate in the ceremonies. You need to separate taking photos in a retail environment and actively taking part in the ceremony itself. A line must be drawn. It clashes with the First Amendment Rights of others. Surely you believe in the First Amendment right?



The First Amendment is

Precedent has already been set. You can't force people to take part in ceremonies, or pledges that contradicts their beliefs and freedom of expression. Nobody should be forced to marry gay people. Nobody should be forced to condone or take part in their ceremonies against their will and against their beliefs.

100% correct they don't. What they are after is support and legitimizing discrimination they chose.
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

I other words, you have nothing. Let's see... I destroyed your argument because the research that you posted was shown to be invalid, so you couldn't post anything in response other than what you did above... a non-argument.

Good job.

LOL. The only thing you might have destroyed is the letter "I' on your keyboard.

Question on that 20 man study that indicated most didn't know how to put a rubber on correctly. How many of them tried to put one on over their head? I saw a guy try to do that in a bar one night and it was pretty funny. I didn't look around to see if anyone was taking notes for a study but who knows, somebody might have been.
 
Your position does not reflect reality. The definitions of words change as society changes. Your position on whether this "should" or "should not" happen is irrelevant as to what occurs. They must as, because of my presentation of the definition of the word definition, in order to be consistent with how the word is used. And as a side note, this is why you always lose in these exchanges. You tend to use the word "should" or some concept that means "should". This is a reflection of your opinion, as should does not define what actually happens.
I have clearly never lost in any "exchange" with you in these threads.

The usage of words change over time, but that does not mean that the word is "redefined" or "takes on a new meaning" when the usage of that word is erroneous with respect to the true meaning of the word being used.

I've clearly presented analogously that you simply can't call a cat a dog, erroneously misusing the word "dog", and expect any rational person to say "well, the word 'dog' was used to describe a cat so the word 'dog' has been redefined to include cats". :roll:

Erroneous usage of a word does in no way redefine or change the meaning of the word, obviously.

Erroneously referring in usage to a SS-couple's relevant relationship as a "marriage" in no way redefines or changes the meaning of the word "marriage".

The word "marriage" continues to mean "a man and a woman as husband and wife".

It really is that simple.

Thus your derogatory comments about me you presented in the post here I quoted are simply really in reference to yourself ..

.. Obviously.
 
OK. You didn't invent the word. Good to know... though it is interesting that each of your links (with the exception of the last) goes to a post, not an article. How do we know that you didn't write those posts? They sound like you. Regardless I will give you the benefit of the doubt, though it is YOU here who is peddling the theory of the usage of this word. It's also good to know that you admit that this is nothing but your opinion. So, when you present it as anything other than an opinion, I will point this out to you. When you present it as an opinion, I will point out that your opinion is meaningless.
You say "good to know", but you don't apologize for you purposeful attempt at distortion.

Then you go on to paranoid-suggest that "how do we really know it wasn't you -- they sound like you". :roll:

Then you again call the word "homarriage" a theory, which is an obviously false assertion. The word isn't a "theory", it's simply a coined term, not a "theory" at all, clearly revealing that you don't know what a "theory" truly is. :lol:

The rest of your post is simply more error-based posturing.

What this all does prove is that, once again, you lost on point, and you're unable to admit it and then simply let go.
 
Your position does not reflect reality. The definitions of words change as society changes. Your position on whether this "should" or "should not" happen is irrelevant as to what occurs. They must as, because of my presentation of the definition of the word definition, in order to be consistent with how the word is used. And as a side note, this is why you always lose in these exchanges. You tend to use the word "should" or some concept that means "should". This is a reflection of your opinion, as should does not define what actually happens.
Again, obviously false.

You mistake "usage" for both "definition" and "true meaning", two obviously different things.

I've pointed out the details of your mistake above.
 
You say "good to know", but you don't apologize for you purposeful attempt at distortion.

Then you go on to paranoid-suggest that "how do we really know it wasn't you -- they sound like you". :roll:

Then you again call the word "homarriage" a theory, which is an obviously false assertion. The word isn't a "theory", it's simply a coined term, not a "theory" at all, clearly revealing that you don't know what a "theory" truly is. :lol:

The rest of your post is simply more error-based posturing.

What this all does prove is that, once again, you lost on point, and you're unable to admit it and then simply let go.

He doesn't know how to have a discussion without lying and personally attacking someone
 
... discovered yet. Don't worry Bronson. Every time I see you post this error... one that has already been proven to you to be logically unsound, I will correct you, both so that others understand that what you say is incorrect and to make sure that you remember how badly you have been destroyed on this issue.

Your premise is an emotional argument. Not a scientific one.

There is no gay gene.
 
Last edited:

1.) equal but separate is factually not equal this is already established
2.) there are about 1200 FEDERAL rights which some can not be granted any other way except by marriage. Heck until just VERY recently (like last month lol) you couldnt do your taxes in married form buy the IRS just fixed that discrimination for 2013.
3.) all the state rights that arent granted everywhere and some states wont recognize other states civil unions
4.) and lastly when challenged in courts, civil unions and domestic partnership have been proven not as legally binding and there is now precedence further making them factually different.

Like i said they are factually not equal and anybody honest and educated on this subject knows this fact.
 
I think that the block lgbt is running into is that many consider "marriage" a religious rite.

religious marriage has nothing to do with legal marriage and religious marriage isnt impact in anyway what so ever.

so any rights people associate with religious marriage (which their are none) aren't impacted

so basically the facts dont care what they think
 
1.) Like i said they are factually not equal and anybody honest and educated on this subject knows this fact.

Gay "Marriage" is an inferior form of pretend marriage. It's a sham. It doesn't deserve to be in the same discussion as the tradition of marriage, which brings the opposite sexes together to form one union. From this union, new life is created with unique DNA, formed from the DNA of that child's biological parents. This all has significant social and economic purposes that are unique to this institution. Not the Frankenstein experiments that the LGBT community has to engage in to try and pass themselves off as "normal".

If that hurts your feelings I don't care. Live with it.
 
I think that is a way to do it, maybe the only uncontroversial way.

that would never be uncontroversial because many people would see that has giving into to bigots and their crying.

would it have been uncontroversial if instead of making blacks also legal persons they decided to make up some NEW term?

what if when Obama was being sworn in, they said excuse me but we cant call you POTUS, that is to secret and theres to much history in this country to let you blacks have that title. We are going to call you CEO of America because POTUS cant have its sanctity ruined by you blacks.

would that be controversial?

granting equal rights is controversial to those that are against equality and want to discriminate but people dont care about them and they shouldn't. If thats the controversy nobody in favor of equal rights cares.

The country is slowly but surely granting equality and there NO logical reason to change the term marriage, not one.
 
I have clearly never lost in any "exchange" with you in these threads.

The usage of words change over time, but that does not mean that the word is "redefined" or "takes on a new meaning" when the usage of that word is erroneous with respect to the true meaning of the word being used.

I've clearly presented analogously that you simply can't call a cat a dog, erroneously misusing the word "dog", and expect any rational person to say "well, the word 'dog' was used to describe a cat so the word 'dog' has been redefined to include cats". :roll:

Erroneous usage of a word does in no way redefine or change the meaning of the word, obviously.

Erroneously referring in usage to a SS-couple's relevant relationship as a "marriage" in no way redefines or changes the meaning of the word "marriage".

The word "marriage" continues to mean "a man and a woman as husband and wife".

It really is that simple.

Thus your derogatory comments about me you presented in the post here I quoted are simply really in reference to yourself ..

.. Obviously.

youve lost them ALL, every single one, not only lost but your posts got destroyed in an embarrassing fashion. ANd while CC is probably the best at it, many poster have dont this to your failed posts.
 
1.)Gay "Marriage" is an inferior form of pretend marriage. It's a sham. It doesn't deserve to be in the same discussion as the tradition of marriage, which brings the opposite sexes together to form one union. From this union, new life is created with unique DNA, formed from the DNA of that child's biological parents. This all has significant social and economic purposes that are unique to this institution. Not the Frankenstein experiments that the LGBT community has to engage in to try and pass themselves off as "normal".
2.)If that hurts your feelings I don't care. Live with it.

1.) yeah you keep saying this meaningless unsupportable failed opinion and i keep asking you for facst to back it up and you never answer, why? because you have no facts to back it up
2.) doesnt hurt me at all because its factually wrong and im very happy equal rights are being granted and discrimination is losing. You would be the one with hurt feelins trying to stop it.

Let me know when you have any facts to support your posted lies
 
1.) yeah you keep saying this meaningless unsupportable failed opinion and i keep asking you for facst to back it up and you never answer, why? because you have no facts to back it up

Biological and scientific fact. Not my problem you are anti science.

2.) doesnt hurt me at all because its factually wrong and im very happy equal rights are being granted and discrimination is losing. You would be the one with hurt feelins trying to stop it.

Of course it hurts you. Look at the way you emotionally lash out at anyone who has a different opinion. Look at how you personally attack people. Look at how you and all the other "tolerant" individuals proclaiming to be for "equality" viciously attack anyone you disagree with personally.

Let me know when you have any facts to support your posted lies

You're not interested in facts which is why I rarely bother with your emo nonense
 
youve lost them ALL, every single one, not only lost but your posts got destroyed in an embarrassing fashion. ANd while CC is probably the best at it, many poster have dont this to your failed posts.
:roll:

3k9c1a7u11q5
 
:roll:

3k9c1a7u11q5

I almost pity how emotionally invested these people are in gay sex

If gay sex had a purpose, evolution would have found it by now and we would have seen adaptation
 
1.)Biological and scientific fact. Not my problem you are anti science.
2.)Of course it hurts you. Look at the way you emotionally lash out at anyone who has a different opinion.
3.)Look at how you personally attack people. Look at how you and all the other "tolerant" individuals proclaiming to be for "equality" viciously attack anyone you disagree with personally.
4.)You're not interested in facts which is why I rarely bother with your emo nonense

1.) biology and science have NOTHING to do with legal marriage, fail 1
2.) wrong again, no lashing, i point out thae facts and when poeple make dishonest posts HUGE difference fail 2
ive never viciously attacked anybody for a different OPINION. if you disagree PLEASE link me doing this instead of making up lies, nice try fail 3
4.) thats what i thought, fail 4

translation: you have none and this is why your posts get destroyed

facts destroy your posts again, let me know when you get any facts supporting the lies you posted, any . . .hell ill take even ONE
 
Back
Top Bottom