• 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]

j-mac said:
You asked, I answered. You don't like the answer, so you dismiss, ridicule, and label it. Sadly predictable.
Click to expand...

like had nothing to do with it, he was just pointing out why that answer factually fails and isnt legitimate, logical argument.
 
Ontologuy said:
Your premises are false .. but I realize that in order to continue discussing the matter, you need to assume I'm homophobic, as you're frustrated that I won't buy into the "gay marriage" "same-sex marriage" oxymoronic speak that the left wing has permeated the media with for so many years, subconsciously falsely influencing people to think that "marriage" has meant other than what it has always truly meant: between a man and a woman as husband and wife.

You need to understand that I can't be, in effect, brainwashed in this manner.

It's always been crystal clear obvious that "marriage" means "between a man and a woman as husband and wife" and has never meant anything other than that, and that anything other than that was simply not a "marriage" no matter what it was erroneously called.

Despite left-wing PC and other media campaigns, the greater majority of society, though accepting of same-sex committed romantic domestic partnership civil union relationships, wants a different name associated with them than "marriage", and rightly so, as was demonstrated in a Gallup poll posted sometime ago in another thread at this forum.

That's reality, and, it's a respectable one, as it respects both definitive propriety, a respect for the time-honored meaning of words, and society's sensibilities.
Click to expand...

You are literally whining over semantics. Stomping your feet and repeating over and over that YOU CANT CHANGE WHAT MARRIAGE MEANS! WAAAAAHHHH!

Oh, you hide it behind smart-sounding words, but that's what you're doing. Whining about definitions instead of seeing the people.

Definitive propriety. That's a laugh. Ask an American for a fag. You'll get a weird look. Then ask a Brit the same. Let me know how they respond.

Guess what? I don't care that this supposed majority of Americans want gay couples to use a different word. (not actually true, as of late) We don't decide minority rights on the whims of the majority. You don't have the right to define a word. Marriage, on the other hand, is a right, and gender-based classifications undergo an intermediate level of constitutional scrutiny under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution. Banning same-sex marriage does not pass this test.

But continue arguing over a dictionary if you like. My argument is legal.
 
Last edited:
LuckyLarry said:
Why is the term "birth defect" offensive to you?

Does the person with Down's Syndrome or Turner's Syndrome or Kleinfelter's Syndrome get offended that their condition is termed a "birth defect?" I don't think so. I imagine that they understand it for what it is and the term describing their reality is simply that... A term. Applying emotion to it only confuses the reality.

This is the same reason that every few years we have to come up with a new word for the "handicapped" err I mean, "disabled" err I mean, "DIFFERENTLY ABLED"

If it is a "birth defect" then it is what it is and it shouldn't trigger angst. If you believe it is not a "birth defect" and hearing the term used to explain homosexuality causes you to feel that homosexuals are being attacked by the use of the term this would only indicate that you believe the term "birth defect" means someone is less valued than another based on a defect which was out of their control. Since there are conditions that are acceptably termed "defects" as those listed above, one could only conclude you feel they are lower in value than yourself.
Click to expand...

Are you in the habit of going up to people with Down's Syndrome and telling them they have a birth defect?

If homosexuality is related to a birth defect then that will become apparent in time but claiming it is based on a proposed model and a political pundit's opinion is beyond ridiculous. It is nothing more than a blatant attempt to belittle gay people because they are different. Why claim gays must have a defect because some aspect of their biology differs from yours even though it does not cause them any impairment, dysfunction, or distress? The only reason a person would do so is to disparage them.
 
Last edited:
AGENT J said:
like had nothing to do with it, he was just pointing out why that answer factually fails and isnt legitimate, logical argument.
Click to expand...

Sure it is J, the whole concept of marriage was to procreate, as well as ensure the family unit.
 
j-mac said:
Sure it is J, the whole concept of marriage was to procreate, as well as ensure the family unit.
Click to expand...

So what about infertile couples? Do we allow them to marry?

Does just being a family unit do well enough?
 
j-mac said:
Sure it is J, the whole concept of marriage was to procreate, as well as ensure the family unit.
Click to expand...

thanks for your opinion but its meaningless to fact.
procreation has nothing to do with legal marriage, nothing

hell procreation has nothing to do with any marriage the parties involved dont want it too

so like i said any argument based on procreation about legal marriage is a complete failure, theres no changing that fact
 
Deuce said:
You are literally whining over semantics. Stomping your feet and repeating over and over that YOU CANT CHANGE WHAT MARRIAGE MEANS! WAAAAAHHHH!
Click to expand...
No ..

.. But that's clearly what you are doing. :shock:

Stop whining over the word "marriage" and simply choose a properly accurate different word.

It really is that simple.


Deuce said:
Oh, you hide it behind smart-sounding words, but that's what you're doing. Whining about definitions instead of seeing the people.
Click to expand...
Rather than whine about being unable to compete, you might do well to just choose an appropriately accurate word to describe SS-couples' relevant relationships.


Deuce said:
Definitive propriety. That's a laugh. Ask an American for a fag. You'll get a weird look. Then ask a Brit the same. Let me know how they respond.
Click to expand...
Of course you scoff at properly respecting words and their time-honored meaning, because that's what's got 63% of the population opposed to the oxymoronic term "gay marriage".

If you can just corrupt the word "marriage", all your problems are solved.

:roll:


Deuce said:
Guess what? I don't care that this supposed majority of Americans want gay couples to use a different word.
Click to expand...
Well .. that's truly sad .. .. and self-defeatist .. .. not to mention arrogant.


Deuce said:
(not actually true, as of late)
Click to expand...
False, it is still true.

Just see the new thread.




Deuce said:
We don't decide minority rights on the whims of the majority. You don't have the right to define a word. Marriage, on the other hand, is a right, and gender-based classifications undergo an intermediate level of constitutional scrutiny under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution. Banning same-sex marriage does not pass this test.
Click to expand...
It's not a rights issue.

The word "marriage" is already defined, 12,000 years ago, and remains "between a man and a woman as husband and wife" to this day.

Your argument here is tantamount to saying its a rights violation against cat owners for not letting them call their shows "dog shows".

Ridiculous.


Deuce said:
But continue arguing over a dictionary if you like.
Click to expand...
That's what you're doing.

I don't need to play dictionary games because the meaning of the word "marriage" was really never in doubt.


Deuce said:
My argument is legal.
Click to expand...
No, it isn't.
 
Bronson said:
Sure you don't



If homosexual sex had a purpose and rationality evolution would have adapted to it by now

It's just irrational filthy behavior
Click to expand...



Homosexual marriages have the same purpose that heterosexual marriages have--a commitment to love, honor and cherish... Your prudish opinions on sexuality do not matter..
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

Gaugingcatenate said:
Who said anything about not accepting homosexual relationships? They will happen no matter what...how many of those allowed the full rights of marriage? Tolerance we will accept, equivalence to heterosexual marriage is not acceptable...sorry. It is not the same, should not be encouraged, no requirement to accept this unnecessary demand.
Click to expand...




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...
 
Juanita said:
Homosexual marriages have the same purpose that heterosexual marriages have--a commitment to love, honor and cherish... Your prudish opinions on sexuality do not matter..
Click to expand...

Could you define the difference between a civil union performed at the courthouse, and a marriage?
 
j-mac said:
Could you define the difference between a civil union performed at the courthouse, and a marriage?
Click to expand...

legally they are factually not equal
 
Juanita said:
Homosexual marriages have the same purpose that heterosexual marriages have--a commitment to love, honor and cherish... Your prudish opinions on sexuality do not matter..
Click to expand...

So according to you marriage is defined as nothing more that an emotional bond. That anyone who wants to be with the one they love should have that right. Am I understanding that correctly? For if you are going to define marriage as an emotional bond then that means a whole lot more folks who society has shunned for their practices may well indeed qualify for the same rights! After all, who are YOU to be so PRUDISH in your OPINIONS to deny them?

:lamo
 
Ontologuy said:
False, obviously.

Marriage was created just before the agricultural revolution more than 12,000 years ago and has remained at its foundational requirement "a man and a woman as husband and wife".

Any location specific additional idiosyncratic criteria in certain cultures about class, or race, or the like only served to restrict the number of marriages, but every marriage created remained between a man and a woman as husband and wife or the union simply was not a marriage.




From what I have read, the first marriage contracts began 4,000 years ago in Mesopotania.
Click to expand...
 
Bronson said:
Homosexual sex is dirty, deviant behavior

If it had a purpose, evolution would have found one by now
Click to expand...



I asked this before, but got no response.. What can two men do to each other that you could not do to your wife?
 
LuckyLarry said:
Why is the term "birth defect" offensive to you?

Does the person with Down's Syndrome or Turner's Syndrome or Kleinfelter's Syndrome get offended that their condition is termed a "birth defect?" I don't think so. I imagine that they understand it for what it is and the term describing their reality is simply that... A term. Applying emotion to it only confuses the reality.

This is the same reason that every few years we have to come up with a new word for the "handicapped" err I mean, "disabled" err I mean, "DIFFERENTLY ABLED"

If it is a "birth defect" then it is what it is and it shouldn't trigger angst. If you believe it is not a "birth defect" and hearing the term used to explain homosexuality causes you to feel that homosexuals are being attacked by the use of the term this would only indicate that you believe the term "birth defect" means someone is less valued than another based on a defect which was out of their control. Since there are conditions that are acceptably termed "defects" as those listed above, one could only conclude you feel they are lower in value than yourself.
Click to expand...



What an amusing "twist" on the issue.....
 
j-mac said:
Could you define the difference between a civil union performed at the courthouse, and a marriage?
Click to expand...



It is still marriage regardless if you re married by a judge or a minister.. Marriage is marriage.
 
vesper said:
So according to you marriage is defined as nothing more that an emotional bond. That anyone who wants to be with the one they love should have that right. Am I understanding that correctly? For if you are going to define marriage as an emotional bond then that means a whole lot more folks who society has shunned for their practices may well indeed qualify for the same rights! After all, who are YOU to be so PRUDISH in your OPINIONS to deny them?

:lamo
Click to expand...



OMG--not the slippery slope again? What is it with you and incest? It has absolutely nothing to do with SSM...but you keep trying to detract and divert from the issue... To love honor and cherish is part of traditional marriage contracts....
 
Juanita said:
OMG--not the slippery slope again? What is it with you and incest? It has absolutely nothing to do with SSM...but you keep trying to detract and divert from the issue... To love honor and cherish is part of traditional marriage contracts....
Click to expand...

yeah the slipper slope argument for marriage is always a dishonest asinine failed argument
 
Juanita said:
OMG--not the slippery slope again? What is it with you and incest? It has absolutely nothing to do with SSM...but you keep trying to detract and divert from the issue... To love honor and cherish is part of traditional marriage contracts....
Click to expand...
Tunnel vision really does keep one from seeing past their own noses. When you make the standard for marriage to be nothing more than an emotional union then you truly do open the door for anything else that can be claimed as a bastardized "civil right". There really is such a thing as slippery slopes. That's reality deal with it.
 
vesper said:
Tunnel vision really does keep one from seeing past their own noses. When you make the standard for marriage to be nothing more than an emotional union then you truly do open the door for anything else that can be claimed as a bastardized "civil right". There really is such a thing as slippery slopes. That's reality deal with it.
Click to expand...




Your reality, not mine....Gee, if I walk outside, I might fall down the steps, if I fall down the steps I may break my leg, therefore I shouldn't go outside... Makes about as much sense..
 
vesper said:
Tunnel vision really does keep one from seeing past their own noses. When you make the standard for marriage to be nothing more than an emotional union then you truly do open the door for anything else that can be claimed as a bastardized "civil right". There really is such a thing as slippery slopes. That's reality deal with it.
Click to expand...

Yep once those heterosexuals started gettin' hitched that slippery slope got started. Then the colored wanted to get hitched. Next thing yanno women might demand the right to vote
 
winston53660 said:
Yep once those heterosexuals started gettin' hitched that slippery slope got started. Then the colored wanted to get hitched. Next thing yanno women might demand the right to vote
Click to expand...

dont be silly women, gays and coloreds arent even people, <boss hog voice> gu gu gu gu you dispstick
 
Juanita said:
Your reality, not mine....Gee, if I walk outside, I might fall down the steps, if I fall down the steps I may break my leg, therefore I shouldn't go outside... Makes about as much sense..
Click to expand...

What a pathetic......response which is no more relevant than if I cut my toenails in the improper way, I may end up with ingrown toenails.
What you fail to recognize is the consequences of changing LAW. And according to you all it takes is an emotional attachment to another person whether it be of the opposite sex or same sex to qualify to be defined as marriage. So if YOUR requirements are solely based on emotion, the love and desire to be with the one they love, then marriage is open to anyone who has an emotional love for another whether society is accepting of it or not.
You want to talk fallacy arguments well there is none bigger than the one you are proposing and is at the heart of every gay marriage argument.They are all based on emotion. So deal with it. And when the others come along that make you feel icky about offering them the same rights, you are going to have to deal with that also because people like you allowed it to happen.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom