• 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!

Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

I'm not excusing these people's actions in the least. However, I do believe getting in people's faces while in public about something is necessary at times for change.

MLK did more with passive resistance, preaching logic, making sense than all the "angry" blacks combined....
 
It is practiced more than the public knows about, but the smart ones keep a very low profile, and don't involve the kids...
I have no moral opposition to it, but some of them have been known to abuse welfare and foodstamp programs...and the fiscal conservative side of me objects to that...

I also see no problem with legalizing polygamy. The financial aspect of it is concerning as well but I believe that it should fall under the same observations that all marriages should undergo for possible financial fraud.

Heterosexual marriages can commit tax or financial fraud that same as any other marriage.
 
But there needs to be a principle, or it's just case-by-case, and that's not rule of law; it's just arbitrary.

If the principle is, consenting adults have the right to marry whomever they wish, what's the principled argument against polygamy, group marriages, or siblings marrying?

I did mention brothers marrying in order to take an incestuous child out of the equation, but seriously, couldn't a brother and sister marry and just abort any child?

So, what's the principled argument against it?

If the marriage constitutes a health risk for the offspring or is a genetic abomination then it shouldn't be allowed. This eliminates inter-species marriage and incestial marriage.

The only arguments against polygamy and same-sex marriage are possible financial fraud and social acceptance which exists in stages for heterosexual marriage as well.
 
It is practiced more than the public knows about, but the smart ones keep a very low profile, and don't involve the kids...
I have no moral opposition to it, but some of them have been known to abuse welfare and foodstamp programs...and the fiscal conservative side of me objects to that...

The fiscal conservative side of me objects to that abuse regardless of someone's marital status.
 
The fiscal conservative side of me objects to that abuse regardless of someone's marital status.

A few years ago some of the FLDS who live amonst the LDS were found to be abusing the welfare system.
Certainly a man should not be able to marry more women than he can afford.
Now, having said that, how does ANYONE afford more than one wife, much less 25 kids?
Me, I got a great wife, conservative spender, earned more than me when working (except at first), better retirement....:lol:
 
I have already explained to you in a previous reply, that this is not about me.

It also isn't about you.
It is about the subject.
Making any topic for debate, about the person engaged in the debate, is wrong.
It isn't about you because you're not gay. Were you gay it would be about you. And is how I see precisely where the problem is. Those like you think, well it's not about taking away my rights it's about someone else's rights and I don't give two ****s for them anyway so, who cares, damn their rights.
Hence, if you think that to tell gays, hey, you can't marry but you're free to marry like any heterosexual is a valid rational for your support of revoking the rights of gays. Then the inverse has to be true, that you can choose also to be gay by being "convinced".
Hence again, can you be convinced to be gay.

:fyi: there's a little button on the lower right corner of each post that says quote. Please use that button when responding to a post.
 
Last edited:
By jfuh
It isn't about you because you're not gay. Were you gay it would be about you. And is how I see precisely where the problem is. Those like you think, well it's not about taking away my rights it's about someone else's rights and I don't give two ****s for them anyway so, who cares, damn their rights.
Hence, if you think that to tell gays, hey, you can't marry but you're free to marry like any heterosexual is a valid rational for your support of revoking the rights of gays. Then the inverse has to be true, that you can choose also to be gay by being "convinced".
Hence again, can you be convinced to be gay.

First of all, you are wrong. (see underlined portion)

Secondly it looks as though I will have to repeat myself again for your benefit.
Not just once, but thrice.
I find it despicable foolish for someone to make assumptions about another when they haven't revealed * any such information about their self.
For all you know, I might be gay, transsexual or even bi.
Heck, for all you know, I might be mono-sexual. :mrgreen:​
and
I have already explained to you in a previous reply, that this is not about me.

It also isn't about you.
It is about the subject.
Making any topic for debate, about the person engaged in the debate, is wrong.​
and
It depends on how far one is willing to go to 'convince' them.​



And just for your own information, why don't you check out this blogger,
the Gay Patriot
 
Last edited:
If the marriage constitutes a health risk for the offspring or is a genetic abomination then it shouldn't be allowed. This eliminates inter-species marriage and incestial marriage.

The child can simply be aborted.


The only arguments against polygamy and same-sex marriage are possible financial fraud and social acceptance which exists in stages for heterosexual marriage as well.

How about same-sex siblings? Father and adult son? Mother and adult daughter? No possibility of children.

And . . . "social acceptance"? Explain.
 
The child can simply be aborted.




How about same-sex siblings? Father and adult son? Mother and adult daughter? No possibility of children.

And . . . "social acceptance"? Explain.

Robt. A. Heinlein had something to say about incest...it is just as likely to have some good genetic changes as bad. But it must be closely monitored. Dog breeders do it all the time.
Look at the ears on the british royal family....:lol:
 
Robt. A. Heinlein had something to say about incest...it is just as likely to have some good genetic changes as bad. But it must be closely monitored. Dog breeders do it all the time.
Look at the ears on the british royal family....:lol:

Like I said, doesn't matter if the child is aborted.

In any case, leaving that out of it . . .

What's the principled argument against group marriage or same-sex siblings marrying?

I'm not getting much feedback other than "ewwww."
 
To some getting married by the justice of the peace is immoral, yet it is protected. Tell me why should YOUR definition of immoral be used as law?




ACtually most people that are for gay marriage are also for polygamy being legal as well. The problem with polygfamy comes from an administration issue, not a moral one.

If there was a good size of the population that wanted to marry multiple partners, I see nothing wrong with it except for administration issues would need to be done.

Any more glaring generalizations from our local man hater?

Please provide links for you railing for legalizing polygamy.
 
I have no problem with polygamy or gay marriage.

I think polygamy get a bad name from the religious whackjob implications of it, but it doesn't have to be that way. I think if 3 or more consenting adults decided they wanted to legally join together other who am I to stand in the way of their happiness?

Please provide links for your urging legalization of polygamy.
 
Please provide links for your urging legalization of polygamy.

WTF?

If you want links to my opinion (note: I said "I think..." in the post you quoted) look no further than the post you quoted.

I don't have a problem with polygamy as a concept. I do think it's been handled badly in some implementations. I don't think some people doing something badly means that no one should be allowed to try. If that was how it worked we wouldn't have marriage at all.
 
Society has rules, and we made the rules to eastablish order and to protect humankind.

On the other hand, gays show no other thing but hatred against the principles of society.

Being gay is to be against the natural development of society, and gays are individuals who live in their own perversion to which they call "love" as the masquerade.

Our species cannot survive with the proliferation of homosexuality, this is a fact, homosexuality only brings extinction to our species from all points of view.

Families are living in shame because some of their members became gays, this is to say, there is not a parent who will feel proud of having a gay son or daughter, the parents might say that they "love" their gay son anyway, that they "understand" their lesbian daughter anyway, that they "support" their decision anyway, but no pride can be found in these parents but shame. This is the same feeling as if their children became criminals, and this feeling is right, homoseuality kills society.

The behaviour of gays in society isn't negative alone but its influence to follow what is against the order is covered by their claim of deserving "rights". Just read about their invasions to churches saying that the Christ was gay...:lol: Homosexuals show no respect to what order is, and the problem will be worst, they will invade your house, they will brake the order with public events so they can impose their pervert style of life on others.

Who knows how much money was paid by wealthy gays to manipulate government dudes and psychologists to take away homosexuality as a mental deviation or desease, but such a wrong step of the past can be reversed.

We need to reinstall homosexuality back in books of psychology in the chapter which correspondas to sexual behaviours like incest, sexual rape, necrophilia, zoophilia, sodomism, etc.

Instead of taking solely the action of tolerate this individuals, it is a duty of society to look for their treatment and cure. Homosexuality is not a crime but the individuals infected with this desease must be under treatment. Of course,m this is not obligatory but optional, like people with cancer have the option to be under treatment or not.

Gays are overpassing the limits of cordure, and society must act with strong hand now. Such "rights" claimed by gays do not exist neither in the constitution and neither in the moral principles of our culture. On the contrary, the Constitution was createdv also to preserve humankind, and this includes the preservation of the integrity of the physical body.

To a straight person to be indentified as gay might be taken as an offense.

What good comes from homosexuality after all? I have posted this question several times in these forums and no one has gave a single answer showing something positivie from/about homosexuality.

It is time to stop being indifferent to this situation, if you want to protect your family you better start to make your voice to be heard against this desease before is too late.

As a conscious citizen, as a person of principles you must vote "no" for every attempt of homosexuals to gain more ground to spread out their pervert style of life. Remember that their perversion will reach your door sooner as faster is their influence to acquire more power in society.

Homosexuality is a desease and we must look for its cure instead of proliferate it.
 
Last edited:
Please provide links for your urging legalization of polygamy.


Believe me or not, I watched a TV special of families where here in US some guys had three or more wives. They claimed to be happy and they wanted the recognition of their unions by society. The women shared the duties at home and they even said that they take turns to take care of the children in general.
 
I'm sure others will jump in to tear you up, so I'll just say, I think that homosexuality is part of cultural progress.
:shock:
Progress... towards what?
 
Wow....what a hateful post....imagine if you simply substituted the word "Blacks" or "Inter-racial marriage" for "Homosexuals":

"Society has rules, and we made the rules to eastablish order and to protect humankind.

On the other hand, Blacks show no other thing but hatred against the principles of society.

Interracial marriage is to be against the natural development of society, and blacks are individuals who live in their own perversion to which they call "love" as the masquerade.

Our superior race cannot survive with the proliferation of interracial marriage this is a fact, interracial marriage diminsishes the purity of our racefrom all points of view.

Families are living in shame because some of their members married interracially, this is to say, there is not a parent who will feel proud of having a black son or daughter, the parents might say that they "love" their black son anyway, that they "understand" their black daughter anyway, that they "support" their decision anyway, but no pride can be found in these parents but shame. This is the same feeling as if their children became criminals, and this feeling is right, interracial marriage kills society.

The behaviour of blacks in society isn't negative alone but its influence to follow what is against the order is covered by their claim of deserving "rights". Just read about their invasions to churches saying that the Christ favors interracial marriage... Blacks show no respect to what order is, and the problem will be worst, they will invade your house, they will brake the order with public events so they can impose their pervert style of life on others.

Who knows how much money was paid by wealthy blacks to manipulate government dudes and psychologists to take away interracial marriage as a mental deviation or desease, but such a wrong step of the past can be reversed.

We need to reinstall interracial marriage back in books of psychology in the chapter which correspondas to sexual behaviours like incest, sexual rape, necrophilia, zoophilia, sodomism, etc.

Instead of taking solely the action of tolerate this individuals, it is a duty of society to look for their treatment and cure. Being Black is not a crime but the individuals infected with this desease must be under treatment. Of course,m this is not obligatory but optional, like people with cancer have the option to be under treatment or not.

Blacks are overpassing the limits of cordure, and society must act with strong hand now. Such "rights" claimed by Blacks do not exist neither in the constitution and neither in the moral principles of our culture. On the contrary, the Constitution was createdv also to preserve humankind, and this includes the preservation of the integrity of the physical body.

To a white person to be indentified as black might be taken as an offense.

What good comes from interracial marriage after all? I have posted this question several times in these forums and no one has gave a single answer showing something positivie from/about interracial marriage.

It is time to stop being indifferent to this situation, if you want to protect your family you better start to make your voice to be heard against this desease before is too late.

As a conscious citizen, as a person of principles you must vote "no" for every attempt of blacks to gain more ground to spread out their pervert style of life. Remember that their perversion will reach your door sooner as faster is their influence to acquire more power in society.

Interracial marriage is a desease and we must look for its cure instead of proliferate it. -Conquer"
 
Why does progress have to be toward any particular goal? It's just an evolution.
:confused:
By its nature, the word 'progress' means 'toward something'.
So... evolving toward what?
 
I'm sure others will jump in to tear you up, so I'll just say, I think that homosexuality is part of cultural progress.

not sure you meant it as it sounds, in my view, acceptance is the goal.
Which is not the same as tolerance. So far, tolerance has been growing, and it will take a long time for actual acceptance. In the mean time, the extemists on both sides are doing their best to impede progress.
Disney Dude and his ilk likes to call people haters, like that is going to make any progess.
The religious right like to point out the "sins" of others while denying their own sin of intolerance. They are not the least bit reluctant to cast stones....
Extreme views held by "my way or the highway" mentalities rarely make any kind of progress.
 
Society has rules, and we made the rules to eastablish order and to protect humankind.

On the other hand, gays show no other thing but hatred against the principles of society.

Being gay is to be against the natural development of society, and gays are individuals who live in their own perversion to which they call "love" as the masquerade.

Our species cannot survive with the proliferation of homosexuality, this is a fact, homosexuality only brings extinction to our species from all points of view.

Families are living in shame because some of their members became gays, this is to say, there is not a parent who will feel proud of having a gay son or daughter, the parents might say that they "love" their gay son anyway, that they "understand" their lesbian daughter anyway, that they "support" their decision anyway, but no pride can be found in these parents but shame. This is the same feeling as if their children became criminals, and this feeling is right, homoseuality kills society.

The behaviour of gays in society isn't negative alone but its influence to follow what is against the order is covered by their claim of deserving "rights". Just read about their invasions to churches saying that the Christ was gay...:lol: Homosexuals show no respect to what order is, and the problem will be worst, they will invade your house, they will brake the order with public events so they can impose their pervert style of life on others.

Who knows how much money was paid by wealthy gays to manipulate government dudes and psychologists to take away homosexuality as a mental deviation or desease, but such a wrong step of the past can be reversed.

We need to reinstall homosexuality back in books of psychology in the chapter which correspondas to sexual behaviours like incest, sexual rape, necrophilia, zoophilia, sodomism, etc.

Instead of taking solely the action of tolerate this individuals, it is a duty of society to look for their treatment and cure. Homosexuality is not a crime but the individuals infected with this desease must be under treatment. Of course,m this is not obligatory but optional, like people with cancer have the option to be under treatment or not.

Gays are overpassing the limits of cordure, and society must act with strong hand now. Such "rights" claimed by gays do not exist neither in the constitution and neither in the moral principles of our culture. On the contrary, the Constitution was createdv also to preserve humankind, and this includes the preservation of the integrity of the physical body.

To a straight person to be indentified as gay might be taken as an offense.

What good comes from homosexuality after all? I have posted this question several times in these forums and no one has gave a single answer showing something positivie from/about homosexuality.

It is time to stop being indifferent to this situation, if you want to protect your family you better start to make your voice to be heard against this desease before is too late.

As a conscious citizen, as a person of principles you must vote "no" for every attempt of homosexuals to gain more ground to spread out their pervert style of life. Remember that their perversion will reach your door sooner as faster is their influence to acquire more power in society.

Homosexuality is a desease and we must look for its cure instead of proliferate it.

You speak for all parents? I know plenty of people who are proud of their children that are gay. I'm about to become a parent and if my child/ren are gay then I won't have a care in the world that they are other than there are people like you out there who seem them as bad people.

I don't think we have to worry about the lack of human beings in the world due to the "proliferation" of homosexuals. 6 billion and growing seems more of a scourge on this planet than homosexuality.

Homosexuality doesn't go against nature. A number of species practice it. Argue against that why don't you? Calling it a disease is just plain ignorance which is something you seem to have and can't help either.

The CA Supreme Court found that same sex marriage is a Constitutional right. It's not a right that was made up. It's always been there, just not practiced. That's why states had to come up with laws to ban same sex marriage.
 
I'm sure others will jump in to tear you up, so I'll just say, I think that homosexuality is part of cultural progress.

Well, in that case, show here what good comes from homosexuality, show here the "cultural progress"...
 
:confused:
By its nature, the word 'progress' means 'toward something'.
So... evolving toward what?

I dunno. What are turtles evolving toward? How about giraffes? If you understand the nature of evolution this isn't a hard concept. If you think evolution is about a species becoming better or moving toward a goal you are mistaken. Evolution is just change, it doesn't have a goal. What it's moving toward today may not be what it moves toward tomorrow. Read some Richard Dawkins he explains it better than I can.
 
Well, in that case, show here what good comes from homosexuality, show here the "cultural progress"...

"Good" is subjective. I doubt my good and your good would be the same. I might say it's fun and fun is good. You might not agree.

Again "cultural progress" is just change. There have been time sin history in certain societies where homosexuality wasn't a big deal. Then it became more taboo, then more accepted. Things ebb and flow. :shrug:
 
Back
Top Bottom