• 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!

Pa. gov: Gay marriage is like marriage of siblings

Mr.Nick said:
It's one thing to embrace your rights as an individual however it's another to shove your fringe views down other peoples throats then call them intolerant when they want nothing of it....

Being gay isn't the problem - the way homosexuality is being promoted IS the problem...

You act like everyone must accept homosexuality "or else you're an intolerant bigot."

I don't hate gays and I don't like gays, however gay activists piss me off considering the way they promote their agenda is obnoxious and down right childish and those are two qualities I have little respect for.... The way gay activists promote their agenda is no different than the way the WBC promotes their agenda - IMO the way homosexuals promote their "pride parades" is X rated with all the nudity and sexual innuendo.... I have no interest in seeing any of that - there are venues for that type of behavior and they certainly aren't on the streets of major cities.
Click to expand...

every-time you post this lie it gets destroyed, nobody has to personally "Accept it" just like people still dont accept women/minority rights and interracial marriage or other religions.
put please tell us this fantasy story about the evil gays forcing things on you, hows this go again people used to say the same about women and minorities too.
 
mpg said:
It's no secret that some people believe SSM is immoral. How is this 'news'?
Click to expand...
Because something an elected official (governor of PA, to be precise) said seemed to support that position, when taken out of context.
 
Mr.Nick said:
Sorry but homosexuality is abnormal....

If homosexuality were normal than half the population would be gay or at least a considerable amount....

This is just factual...
Click to expand...

It's also factual that left handed people are not "normal" nor are people who are truly brilliant, nor are people with green eyes.

What's the point?

Because people are different they can't have the same rights and benefits as the "majority"?

That's about as un-American as you can get.
 
Mr.Nick said:
Sorry but homosexuality is abnormal....

If homosexuality were normal than half the population would be gay or at least a considerable amount....

This is just factual...
Click to expand...
Nothing is abnormal.

Some things are just less common.

And some things which are less common, and harm people, (such as, for example, pedophiles), have been made illegal.


Being gay used to be illegal. But it never really harmed anyone, so that was bull****.
 
There is no excuse for this level of ignorance in a member of government, not in 2013, not with the internet and all the informative content available, and not when the national debate on this is 15 years strong.
 
Northern Light said:
There is no excuse for this level of ignorance in a member of government, not in 2013, not with the internet and all the informative content available, and not when the national debate on this is 15 years strong.
Click to expand...


And republicans wonder why they lose so many elections..... funny huh?
 
Dragonfly said:
It's also factual that left handed people are not "normal" nor are people who are truly brilliant, nor are people with green eyes. http://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1062388871&noquote=1

What's the point?

Because people are different they can't have the same rights and benefits as the "majority"?

That's about as un-American as you can get.
Click to expand...

What civil liberties and benefits don't gay possess?

If anything they get more rights considering they fall under "affirmative action."

The difference between me and you is that I see an individual and you see a gay individual...
 
Mr.Nick said:
1.)What civil liberties and benefits don't gay possess?

2.)If anything they get more rights considering they fall under "affirmative action."

3.)The difference between me and you is that I see an individual and you see a gay individual...
Click to expand...

1.) how about the many many benefits of marriage, theres about 1200 federal ones that were JUST recently granted what about all the others from state and when moving from state to state, including thins liike spouse visitation etc

there is nobody honest that would ever be mentally retarded enough to believe the lie that gays have equal rights and arent denied them and liberities and benifits. nobody honest and educated

2.) thank you for further exposing your sever lack of education about topics like this, WE ALL fall under AA. ALL OF US.

3.) you see an individual you think its ok to deny equality to thats where we and you differ

you support discrimination and denying equality, we simple do not.

Facts destroy your lies and failed post again
 
Dragonfly said:
Pa. gov: Gay marriage is like marriage of siblings






Typical "conservative/republican" ignorance. :roll:

What a douche nozzle.

So he's saying homosexual = incest


A true moron in so many ways.
Click to expand...

As a legal category, I do not see how it is such a bad comparison. The point is that if the definition isn't going to be "one man and one woman", it must be redefined. The new definition becomes "any two consenting adults". Now, how do you use that definition and exclude brothers and sisters, without discriminating? Your name calling doesn't get it, answer the legal question.
 
Hatuey said:
For medical reasons - not moral reasons. Children born out of cousin marriages have a high incidence of developmental problems.



For legally pragamatic reasons - not moral ones. Who gets the house when a spouse dies?



For legal reasons again - pets an inanimate objects can't consent.

Your lack of information as to why those marriages are illegal is showing.
Click to expand...

I thought the argument from your side was that procreation isn't important to marriage, so incest isn't the issue for sibling marriage and it shouldn't be a problem right? Unless it's just too out of the norm for you....
 
johndylan1 said:
As a legal category, I do not see how it is such a bad comparison. The point is that if the definition isn't going to be "one man and one woman", it must be redefined. The new definition becomes "any two consenting adults". Now, how do you use that definition and exclude brothers and sisters, without discriminating? Your name calling doesn't get it, answer the legal question.
Click to expand...

With the deinition of one man one woman what keeps brothers and sisters from marrying?
 
winston53660 said:
With the deinition of one man one woman what keeps brothers and sisters from marrying?
Click to expand...
I guess they fit that limited definition, but that just makes the point that exclusions are inevitable to the "right" of marriage. In addition, what limits or exclusions are you willing to put on marriage, and how is that legally different from excluding homosexuals? For example any two platonic males, maybe two old guys that just want benefits?
 
johndylan1 said:
I guess they fit that limited definition, but that just makes the point that exclusions are inevitable to the "right" of marriage. In addition, what limits or exclusions are you willing to put on marriage, and how is that legally different from excluding homosexuals?
Click to expand...

I'd have to prove a valid state interest for exclusions

johndylan1 said:
For example any two platonic males, maybe two old guys that just want benefits?
Click to expand...

Like thats never happened before
 
winston53660 said:
I'd have to prove a valid state interest for exclusions



Like thats never happened before
Click to expand...

In order to prove a valid state interest for exclusion, you'll have to first define the states interest in the sanction (point of my other thread).
Should there be exclusions, how will those exclusions not discriminate?
 
The Mark said:
Nothing is abnormal.

Some things are just less common.

And some things which are less common, and harm people, (such as, for example, pedophiles), have been made illegal.


Being gay used to be illegal. But it never really harmed anyone, so that was bull****.
Click to expand...

Yet society judges based on differences and differences only... Generally society doesn't see a man - they see a gay man, a jewish man, a fat man, a smart man, an uneducated man, a poor man, a rich man..... Society generally doesn't see the individual for who they are and many with difference exploit their differences to get pandered to...

That's why a lot of gay people will do everything in their power to show to the world that they're gay - hence part of a "protected class."

Of course anyone who calls that out as the epic bull**** it is - is automatically labeled a racist or homophobe or intolerant while the the individual that dissents opinion doesn't even matter...

I call that a society that selects what is socially appropriate while demonizing those who disagree in some circles.
 
Hatuey said:
Is interracial marriage abnormal to you?
Click to expand...

I suppose that is a question for demographics - outside of urban settings, yes interracial marriage is abnormal - then again what do you consider "interracial marriage?"

Would an Arab marring a Swede be considered an "interracial marriage" or a Sicilian marrying a Irish considered interracial??

Or do the progressives draw the line with blacks and latinos?
 
Mr.Nick said:
Yet you get bent when situations like prop8 occur???

I suppose if the constitution was amended that would be the end of this entire debate now wouldn't it. Yet our congress want's nothing to do with gay marriage considering it's a Tenth Amendment issue and will continue to be a Tenth Amendment issue until the constitution has been amended with language directed as the issue itself.
Click to expand...

Mr.Nick said:
Yeah and the Fourteenth Amendment - not to mention the equal protection clause is vague at best and says absolutely NOTHING about gay marriage.
Click to expand...

It doesn't say anything about ANY minority, discriminatory act, or specific crime. What's your point?

If a state is treating a minority group different within the law, they have to show harm done by that group, or they're attacking an insular minority. It's illegal, under the 14th A. That describes SSM bans to a 't'. If the gays aren't hurting the majority by marrying, and not one person has shown that to be the case, then they should have equal protection under the law to get married. It's their right, just as it's their right to own cars or have jobs. The 14th A, just as the 9th A, give very open rights to the people;The constitution and all the amendments are their to limit the government, not the people. They have the right to marry until it's specifically forbidden by the constitution, and the state constitutional amendments that block that right are themselves unconstitutional under the 14th A;

Equal Protection Clause said:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Click to expand...
 
johndylan1 said:
I thought the argument from your side was that procreation isn't important to marriage, so incest isn't the issue for sibling marriage and it shouldn't be a problem right? Unless it's just too out of the norm for you....
Click to expand...

Personally, I have absolutely no problem with incest, including marriage, between consenting adults.
 
Last edited:
douglas said:
It doesn't say anything about ANY minority, discriminatory act, or specific crime. What's your point?

If a state is treating a minority group different within the law, they have to show harm done by that group, or they're attacking an insular minority. It's illegal, under the 14th A. That describes SSM bans to a 't'. If the gays aren't hurting the majority by marrying, and not one person has shown that to be the case, then they should have equal protection under the law to get married. It's their right, just as it's their right to own cars or have jobs. The 14th A, just as the 9th A, give very open rights to the people;The constitution and all the amendments are their to limit the government, not the people. They have the right to marry until it's specifically forbidden by the constitution, and the state constitutional amendments that block that right are themselves unconstitutional under the 14th A;
Click to expand...

Define "minority group."

Do you know males are a minority?

Do you know that white Christian males are a severe minority?

I suppose all of our differences make every individual a minority somehow some way - it just seems that progressives value certain differences more than others to portray a lynch mob mentality hence a victim hood of certain individuals...
 
Last edited:
Mr.Nick said:
Define "minority group."

Do you know males are a minority?

Do you know that white Christian males are a severe minority?
Click to expand...

And? Nobody is taking away their right to marry! Or, any of their rights. They are being protected under the 14th A just as the gays should be.
 
Mr.Nick said:
Yet society judges based on differences and differences only... Generally society doesn't see a man - they see a gay man, a jewish man, a fat man, a smart man, an uneducated man, a poor man, a rich man..... Society generally doesn't see the individual for who they are and many with difference exploit their differences to get pandered to...
Click to expand...

Yes.

They do.

And there's little we can do about that in the short term.

But that's not the point.

While there can never be an absolute mandate that everyone treat eachother equally...

We can at the very least, make sure the law does.
 
douglas said:
And? Nobody is taking away their right to marry! Or, any of their rights. They are being protected under the 14th A just as the gays should be.
Click to expand...

No but I have become under fire by progressives for dating woman outside my "race" as if they can even tell my race considering I'm Sicilian yet progressives attempt to get ethnic with me and speak Spanish -as if the relationship I have with a woman is somehow "warm to their soul" when they get both their ideas ass-backwards...

It's disgusting to me because you don't see two people having a good time, holding hands and kissing at time - you see two different races bonding and I can clearly see that - so can she considering (albeit in on the social experiment) but is still my GF considering we have similar social ideas..

My findings thus far are that progressives are more than vocal about their politics and feelings when it comes to interrelationships and pay more attention to my relationship with my GF. (who is a dark skinned eastern Indian who could appear to be "black"..

In short hardly anyone pays attention when we're in public doing a study - we get no hate but tons of comments from progressives who think integration is fantastic and the right way to progress society - some have even applauded the destruction the the white race...

I can add a lot more info on this subject but I would like to keep some private.
 
Mr.Nick said:
I suppose that is a question for demographics - outside of urban settings, yes interracial marriage is abnormal - then again what do you consider "interracial marriage?"

Would an Arab marring a Swede be considered an "interracial marriage" or a Sicilian marrying a Irish considered interracial??

Or do the progressives draw the line with blacks and latinos?
Click to expand...
In my mind, the term "abnormal" has negative connotations - as in, "this is, if not morally wrong, at least morally questionable".

Thus, I dislike your use of that word when referencing "interracial marriages" - and why I would say "uncommon". Because, frankly, they are uncommon - but not abnormal.

In a similar way, I dislike using the term "abnormal" when referencing same-sex marriages.


That said, I understand that if your personal feelings on the subject are negative, calling it abnormal would be accurate - for you - so long as you clarify the statement with "in my opinion".


OTOH, my understanding of the words may be faulty....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom