• 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

The only difference between a "slippery slope" and incremental-ism is whether the person using it is a supporter or opponent of any given policy. I don't need to "prove" anything to you as your opinion, approval, endorsement, acceptance are not relevant to anything I believe.

Animals and children cannot sign legal contracts. End of slippery slope.
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

Animals and children cannot sign legal contracts. End of slippery slope.

They can if we say they can. All law is arbitrary. The law said blacks couldn't vote and then the law changed. Contracts don't even have to be signed. Slippery slopes don't end where some guy on the interwebz says they end because it is convenient for their position at the time.
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

That is no answer. In fact it is the most amazing example of circular logic and double-talk I have seen so far in this thread. Now you are talking about the possibility of same-sex marriages "altering current laws." Marriage is marriage, the laws applying to heterosexual couples would simply apply to same sex couples. This includes divorce, property rights, death benefits, adoption, step-parenting, natural born children, etc., etc. You keep "hedging" because you have no leg to stand on "legally speaking."

Just in case you forgot, here is your quote again:



YOU assert that same sex marriage may not operate under current LAWS concerning legal rights and obligations of traditional marriage. Therefore the onus is on YOU to provide a factual basis for such an assertion. You have been challenged to provide any real example of currently existing law which could be not be interpreted to affect same-sex marriages the same way they do "traditional" marriages. Absent such evidence you have no argument.

We are all waiting patiently for your evidence.

I want to "like" this post about a dozen times.....but I can't.

My daughters grew up about 8 houses away from a lesbian couple.

They were in fact some of the nicest ladies going. Had a beautiful chocolate lab.
We had a very white-ish yellow lab and a black lab, so naturally my family and these ladies had a common bond.

For anyone to suggest to me that they should not be allowed to get "married" because of some bull-feces religious dogma is infuriating.

They were respectful, wonderful, engaging, intelligent, entertaining, classy, and just flat-out good people.

It's fine for anyone to say "my religion doesn't condone same-sex marriage", but it's not fine to suggest that nobody should condone it, and even worse to say the legal/state/government systems shouldn't recognize it.

Preventing two consenting adults from having a formally and legally recognized commitment to each other is just plain ignorant.

It's quite hypocritical too as most of the people who wish to prevent SSM also typically soapbox against promiscuity and/or pre-marital sex, or "living together in sin".
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

The institution of gay marriage is still in the building process. You nor anyone else knows what that institution is going to look like when it is completed.


The institution of "traditional" or "straight" marriage is still in the building process. You nor anyone else knows what that institution is going to look like when it is completed.


Now...isn't that equally as true as what you've written?

How about we just erase "marriage" completely from all society, for everyone?

After all - most gay kids come from straight, married parents.
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

They can if we say they can. All law is arbitrary. The law said blacks couldn't vote and then the law changed. Contracts don't even have to be signed. Slippery slopes don't end where some guy on the interwebz says they end because it is convenient for their position at the time.

Ok. Supporting heterosexual marriage means you'll eventually support child rape. Ban heterosexual marriage.
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

Ok. Supporting heterosexual marriage means you'll eventually support child rape. Ban heterosexual marriage.

I don't support government involvement in marriage at all, and it doesn't change that the law is not a static thing. Minors can already legally contract under certain circumstances.
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

They can if we say they can. All law is arbitrary. The law said blacks couldn't vote and then the law changed. Contracts don't even have to be signed. Slippery slopes don't end where some guy on the interwebz says they end because it is convenient for their position at the time.

Ok, so then let's take a .look at all slippery slopes. Marriage leads to rape. Let's kill everyone, then no rape. Got it, thank you for your wonderful idea :roll:

Now in the real world, where marriage doesn't lead to rape, we will allow gay marriage eventually.
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

Ok, so then let's take a .look at all slippery slopes. Marriage leads to rape. Let's kill everyone, then no rape. Got it, thank you for your wonderful idea :roll:

Now in the real world, where marriage doesn't lead to rape, we will allow gay marriage eventually.

no, that is your idea. Your inability to conceptualize except in a crass, elementary way, however, has already been duly noted
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

That is no answer. In fact it is the most amazing example of circular logic and double-talk I have seen so far in this thread. Now you are talking about the possibility of same-sex marriages "altering current laws." Marriage is marriage, the laws applying to heterosexual couples would simply apply to same sex couples. This includes divorce, property rights, death benefits, adoption, step-parenting, natural born children, etc., etc. You keep "hedging" because you have no leg to stand on "legally speaking."

Just in case you forgot, here is your quote again:



YOU assert that same sex marriage may not operate under current LAWS concerning legal rights and obligations of traditional marriage. Therefore the onus is on YOU to provide a factual basis for such an assertion. You have been challenged to provide any real example of currently existing law which could be not be interpreted to affect same-sex marriages the same way they do "traditional" marriages. Absent such evidence you have no argument.

We are all waiting patiently for your evidence.

Our marriage laws were written with the traditional nuclear family in mind, whose basic constituents are a mother, a father, and a child and is the primary unit for ensuring the procreation of human beings and the preservation of our society. This is considered the normal view of marriage. The physical makeup between a man and a woman compliments one another. Same sex marriage is abnormal in comparison. How can normal and abnormal operate under the same laws without altering them? They can't.

Your argument comes from the stance that homosexuality is normal. I do not share that view. In fact in reason believe homosexual couples who wish to establish a union between themselves insisting on government allow them to be endowed with the same marriage as in the traditional sense is for the purpose to validate to society their relationship as normal.

There has been a great effort by advocacy groups to paint homosexual behavior as normal. There has also been a lot of sanitizing of their past relations with unpopular organizations in their earlier years of advocacy to make them more mainstream and acceptable. There is currently a push to introduce homosexuality to elementary children in public schools as being normal. Get em while they're young. It is also depicted as normal everyday through television viewing. If all a person watched on television was HGTV, they would be under the impression that 2/3 of the country is gay because every 3rd or 4th episode is either a gay decorator or a gay couple looking for a house when in fact the percentage of the population that are gay is in the single digits.
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

no, that is your idea. Your inability to conceptualize except in a crass, elementary way, however, has already been duly noted

Hey just following your lead that gay marriage will lead to the act of pedophelia being legalized. That's just as silly.
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

How can normal and abnormal operate under the same laws without altering them? They can't.

Sooo.....left handed people can't function in society then? They are definitely "abnormal".
And they're bringing us all closer to doom and destruction???????

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

Sooo.....left handed people can't function in society then? They are definitely "abnormal".
And they're bringing us all closer to doom and destruction???????

Nooooooooooooooooo.............

Well us lefties do worship da devil!
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

Get em while they're young.

The absurdity and ignorance of the things you post is both entertaining, frightening, and aggravating.
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

Our marriage laws were written with the traditional nuclear family in mind, whose basic constituents are a mother, a father, and a child and is the primary unit for ensuring the procreation of human beings and the preservation of our society. This is considered the normal view of marriage. The physical makeup between a man and a woman compliments one another. Same sex marriage is abnormal in comparison. How can normal and abnormal operate under the same laws without altering them? They can't.

Your argument comes from the stance that homosexuality is normal. I do not share that view. In fact in reason believe homosexual couples who wish to establish a union between themselves insisting on government allow them to be endowed with the same marriage as in the traditional sense is for the purpose to validate to society their relationship as normal.

There has been a great effort by advocacy groups to paint homosexual behavior as normal. There has also been a lot of sanitizing of their past relations with unpopular organizations in their earlier years of advocacy to make them more mainstream and acceptable. There is currently a push to introduce homosexuality to elementary children in public schools as being normal. Get em while they're young. It is also depicted as normal everyday through television viewing. If all a person watched on television was HGTV, they would be under the impression that 2/3 of the country is gay because every 3rd or 4th episode is either a gay decorator or a gay couple looking for a house when in fact the percentage of the population that are gay is in the single digits.

Hmmm, so to sum all that up....YOU GOT NOTHING!!!

Your response is just a lot of supposition, allegation, and just plain venom spewed from personal bias. Which is essentially all that arguments most same-sex marriage opponents turn out to be.

Again, when you can point to any current law that would not apply to a same-sex married couple we can discuss it. Until then, we are still waiting.
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

Hmmm, so to sum all that up....YOU GOT NOTHING!!!

Your response is just a lot of supposition, allegation, and just plain venom spewed from personal bias. Which is essentially all that arguments most same-sex marriage opponents turn out to be.

Again, when you can point to any current law that would not apply to a same-sex married couple we can discuss it. Until then, we are still waiting.

I'm biased and you aren't?
In other words if I don't agree with you my opinions are just plain venom spewed from personal bias? Lol

And again no current law can be applied equally to what is normal and what is abnormal. If you can explain how homosexuality is normal then we can talk certain laws? Until then.....
Cheers!
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

And again no current law can be applied equally to what is normal and what is abnormal. If you can explain how homosexuality is normal then we can talk certain laws? Until then.....
Cheers!

So left handed people can't drive in the USofA and be expected to follow the same LAWS as right handed people?????
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

If you can explain how homosexuality is normal then we can talk certain laws?


Aside from who they are attracted to, explain how homosexuals are different than heterosexuals.
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

I'm biased and you aren't?
In other words if I don't agree with you my opinions are just plain venom spewed from personal bias? Lol

And again no current law can be applied equally to what is normal and what is abnormal. If you can explain how homosexuality is normal then we can talk certain laws? Until then.....
Cheers!

Sorry, can't dodge again. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, even you.

However, YOU MADE AN ASSERTION. It then becomes your responsibility to back it up. You consistently fail to do so, offering everything OTHER than fact to back yourself up. You have no real argument. You are welcome to your opinion, but that is all it is.

If that is all you have, then your argument to deny equal rights to American citizens fails.

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

Sorry, can't dodge again. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, even you.

However, YOU MADE AN ASSERTION. It then becomes your responsibility to back it up. You consistently fail to do so, offering everything OTHER than fact to back yourself up. You have no real argument. You are welcome to your opinion, but that is all it is.

If that is all you have, then your argument to deny equal rights to American citizens fails.

:)

Yes I made an assertion that gay marriage laws may not operate under traditional laws ........may not as in maybe. not can not.

And a valid argument for that is the traditional view of marriage is the norm and if one can not prove that a homosexual marriage is normal then then the same laws can not apply equally.

So get busy and share with me how homosexual relationships are normal and on equal footing with traditional marriage.
 
Last edited:
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

So get busy and share with me how homosexual relationships are normal and on equal footing with traditional marriage.

Homosexual relationships are normal and equal to traditional in every single solitary way with the smallest of exceptions that there are two of the same gender people in one, and opposite gender in the other.

Both have jobs. Both have bills. Both own homes. Both drive cars. Both pay taxes. Both have fights. Both buy groceries. Both cook dinners. Both cut grass. Both have deep personal feelings of love and commitment for each other. Both have pets. Both put out garbage. Both shovel snow. Both watch TV. Both read. Both vote. Both may serve in the military. Both have families. Both ......

EVERYTHING homosexuals do heterosexuals do. They just do a few things with a different gender.

What percentage of your overall life would you guesstimate is spent having sex? 5% maybe? Probably less.

So if you subtract the "icky sex with the same gender spouse" - there's absolutely NO difference between a gay marriage and a straight marriage.
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

blah blah blah

translation: you still got ZERO facts to back up your posts and are posting one last desperate dodge and deflection.
running away doesnt change anything the second still tick, i accept you giving up and accepting the lose

let us know when you can provide any facts to back up your claim, even ONE will do
 
This applies even if they are not married? Am I reading that correctly?

I dont know i certainly didnt read that anywhere
what i read said the IRS (federal) will be granting equal rights to all married people even if the state they currently resides doesnt recognize thier marriage. As in you got married in DC but live in South Carolina now. Even though the state doesnt recognize your equal rights the FED will.

What did you read that said otherwise maybe i missed something
 
I dont know i certainly didnt read that anywhere
what i read said the IRS (federal) will be granting equal rights to all married people even if the state they currently resides doesnt recognize thier marriage. As in you got married in DC but live in South Carolina now. Even though the state doesnt recognize your equal rights the FED will.

What did you read that said otherwise maybe i missed something

Nope, I misread. Thanks for the clarification.
 
The only people who feel the need to separate them are people who have issues with LGBT Americans. There isn't a practical reason to separate as they are entering the same contract. By your logic, we should also separate interracial marriages because they're different. My point being, yes a cat show, and dog show are different, but we still call them both shows. In you wanna throw the words "same sex" in front of some peoples marriages that's fine by me, but marriage is marriage.
No, with regard to your first sentence, as there are mentally and emotionally intelligent people who are not biased but who recognize the word usage oxymoronic quick-fix error being attempted by political factions that would completely disrespect definitive propriety, definitive propriety that forms the foundation of our use of language to effectively communicate perceptions and concepts existing both today and in the past.

Definitive propriety requires that we honor the meaning of words and not try to purposely corrupt their meaning to make them mean other than what they truly mean.

For example, when differentiating between sex-gender, we do not call adult females "men", we call them "women", because if we corrupted the meaning of "men" to include females then the word "men" would no longer be of value as a descriptive word in both the past and present.

Both men and women have the same human rights, however, they are simply named differently.

In your example, yes, both a cat show and a dog show are a show, just like both men and women are people.

As you go on to say, we still call them shows, .. and each cat show and dog show can create the same contests and prizes and the like with descriptions appropriate to the cat/dog show (best purr, loudest bark, best cat in show, best dog in show, etc.). But, the dog show and the cat show are still kept separate and referenced with separate terms.

So when speaking of cat shows and dog shows they are always called "cat shows" and "dog shows" because the compound term is foundationally descriptive. They simply aren't called "shows" when being publically presented and referenced to avoid understandable confusion.

Likewise, we don't call adult females "men", even though the syllable "men" is found in both the word "men" and the word "women".

The word marriage has always been since its inception just before the agricultural revolution more than 12,000 years ago "between a man and a woman as husband and wife". That's what the word means. And comparatively microscopic numbers of occurrences of erroneous applications of the word throughout history from time to time in no way changes what marriage truly is any more than the similarly rare instance of calling a cat a dog justifies entering that cat in a dog show.

But are the committed romantic relationships of same-sex couples any less a domestic partnership civil union than the committed romantic relationships of opposite-sex couples?

Absolutely not, just like cat shows are every bit as ethically legitimate as dog shows.

OS and SS couples' relationships should both be recognized by government and private enterprise.

However, with respect to definitive propriety, the foundational test of words and their meaning, a test that comes first prior to ever speculating whether discrimination has occurred, an SS-couple's committed romantic domestic partnership civil union is simply not a "marriage" any more than a female adult is a "man".

A female adult is a "woman".

Both "woman" and "man" have the "man" syllable.

And thus I have suggested "homarriage" to be the word used to describe the committed romantic domestic partnership civil union of a SS-couple.

You have suggested "same-sex marriage".

It seems to me that the only task left is indeed to create a new word that has meaning here in this case and create domestic partnership civil union statutes in every state and recognized by the federal government so that on the 1040 form etc. there would be added a separate status box called "homarried" or whatever is decided.

When we respect definitive propriety we progress and become smarter.

When we ignore definitive propriety and thus disrespect it, we regress, and dumb ourselves down.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom