• 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]

Okay what consequences have we seen in Massachuttes

there are no factually negative consequences, this was asked by many posters now and every answer was destroyed and debunked.
 
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

Being gay is not a race

There is no gay gene
 
Being gay is not a race

There is no gay gene

being religious isnt a race

there is no religion gene

yet you cant discriminate against that either

facts defeat your inane posts again
 
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 it because people like you allowed it to happen.
Okay what consequences have we seen in Massachuttes
Vesper must be talking about Massachusetts having the second lowest divorce rate or third lowest teen pregnancy rate in the country.
 
Not if you're a photographer who refuses to take pictures of a gay wedding
correction, a photographer that broke the law and ADMITTED that they discriminated based on sexual orientation


so sorry you are wrong that photographer is still free but like EVERYBODY ELSE you cant infringe on others rights

facts destroy your post again
 
They are a private photographer

Not a retail store

No they are a business of public accommodation. If they want to discriminate they need to switch to a membership basis.
 
No they are a business of public accommodation. If they want to discriminate they need to switch to a membership basis.

Wrong

There are several cases with precedent which show "public accommodation" doesn't apply when there is a clashing of rights.

Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc. - 515 U.S. 557 (1995) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

If it's a public store setting and they are getting their portrait taken that's one thing. We're talking about photography at the ceremony and actively participating in the service however. The First Amendment would apply in that situation. That person cannot be forced to take part in that ceremony, especially if it violates their religious beliefs. You're basically saying if Martin Luther King was a photographer, he would have been forced to participate in and condone KKK weddings. Or if the KKK tried to hire him to perform some role or service in their ceremonies, he'd have no choice but to comply.
 
Wrong

There are several cases with precedent which show "public accommodation" doesn't apply when there is a clashing of rights.

Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc. - 515 U.S. 557 (1995) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center



What you cited there in that case was not a business.

If it's a public store setting and they are getting their portrait taken that's one thing. We're talking about photography at the ceremony and actively participating in the service however.

Taking photos is what they are selling to the public.

You're basically saying if Martin Luther King was a photographer, he would have been forced to participate in and condone KKK weddings. Or if the KKK tried to hire him to perform some role or service in their ceremonies, he'd have no choice but to comply.

I don't think the KKK is covered by the New Mexico Constitution.
 
What you cited there in that case was not a business.

It could be a business

Taking photos is what they are selling to the public.

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?

I don't think the KKK is covered by the New Mexico Constitution.

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

LOL. When will you follow your own advice? LOL.

Don't worry about a thing though. Because of the wasted effort you spent in running circles around yourself with the use of the word "I" in proving nothing, the right will proudly award you the prize of 1st loser in your two person debate with Gaugingcantenate.

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.
 
You have expressed here your political opinion, albeit falsely, that time-honored respect for words and their true meaning is "ANOTHER one of your erroneous theories".

It is my political opinion that time-honored respect for words and their true meaning -- definitive propriety -- is of foundational validity in deciding the matter of whether SS-couples' relevant relationships should be included in the word "marriage".

I say it should not.

You say that exhibiting a time-honored respect for words and their true meaning is irrelevant.

I disagree.

We hereby express our political opinion, nothing more.

Nevertheless, your attempt to deconstruct the phrase "definitive propriety" is laughably erroneous. :lol:

Time-honored respect for words and their true meaning is not "my theory".

It is a valid way of approaching this relevant problem, a method that has been used forever in writing and testing legal statutes.

Your attempt to castigate this time-honored reasonable approach by falsely demeaning it as "my theory" is, understandably, in obvious error.

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.
 
Most of your post here is fallacy combined with illogical reasoning.

However, it is, as I'm sure you'll understand, important to refute your false statement that "You have decided to invent a word, "homarriage".

I did not invent that word, though I sometimes wish I had.

It is merely my chosen preference from a list, so I frequently suggest "homarriage" as the applicable term.

So "homarriage" is not "my theory" or "my invention" or the like.

As proof, I offer the following:

Others talking about the word: "Homarriage" - Hot Topics - What to Expect.com

This from way back in 2006: Ho-marriage? - The Globe and Mail

Other forums: The weakness in B. H. Obama's strategy....: Off Topic Forum: Digital Photography Review

Other forums: Glenn Beck supports gay marriage.

And from 2009: Gay Marriage: Who Cares? - Taki's Magazine

Etc.

None of the people in the links suggesting the use of the word "homarriage" are me.

The word has been in common usage as a suggestion for the word to describe SS-couples' relevant relationship for a long time, and I simply didn't start its usage.

Thus I, obviously, did not "invent" the word.

I have simply referenced the word "homarriage" as in my political opinion it is one of the most logical short-terms applicable.

Some prefer the longer "homosexual marriage".

Regardless, my made point here is that you are in likely purposeful error in your rush to false judgment that I "invented" the term "homarriage".

This is typical of your approach, in that you falsely state something is "my theory" or that "I invented it" as an attempt to demean and belittle the political opinion.

Not only is your reasoning illogical, as who invented an accurate presentation is irrelevant as the accurate presentation stands on its own, but your reasoning is based on an obviously false premise.

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.
 
Homosexual sex is dirty, deviant behavior

In your opinion. You always seem to forget this important disclaimer. Fear not. I will continue to correct you on this matter.

If it had a purpose, evolution would have found one by now

It's purpose has already been described to you. Anal sex causes pleasure (in some) and assists in pair-bonding (in some). Both are important evolutionary concepts. Many higher organisms will search both for pleasure and to pair-bond.
 
Last edited:
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.

This, of course, has been entirely refuted. Your argument rests on the incorrect assumption that what defines a word is not definite, and that the definitions of words are never changed. Now, one would think that these two statements are incompatible, but in fact, the first is dependent on the second. Since we know that word usage and definitions change over time and since we know what the definition of the word definition is, we know that in order for a word to remain in line with the concept of word definitions, the definitions of these words must be in line with usage.

Very simple logic.
 
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.

Saying that something is a birth defect gives the indication that the thing is an undesirable flaw. Since homosexuality not a birth defect, claiming that it is (a flaw) would be offensive.

That was easy.
 
Perhaps then it is a defense mechanism to experienced abuse/trauma?

That supposes that all people who are homosexual have been abused or experienced trauma. This theory has been debunked about 50 years ago.
 
There is no gay gene

... 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.
 
It could be a business
Wait... did you ACTUALLY say this to try to prove your position??? Your analogy was proven wrong, so your response was to use the word "could"? Could is irrelevant. IS counts.
 
... discovered yet.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom