• 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!

Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto override

Most people at one time opposed interracial marriage, was it right to ban it? Your argument says yes. But we're not a strict democracy, this isn't mob rule.[
Click to expand...
QUOTE=Ikari;1057986177]What does that have to do with the current conversation? Nothing? Thought so.[/QUOTE]

I ask you the same question? I'm just illustrating that you did the same thing.
 
People like this creep me out:

church%20lady.jpg


Not people at gay pride parades. I guess evry group has their cross to bear (pun intended).
 
winston53660 said:
People like this creep me out:

church%20lady.jpg


Not people at gay pride parades. I guess evry group has their cross to bear (pun intended).
Click to expand...

Transvestites freak you out? You're not in the minority.
 
zimmer said:
Heterosexual marriage has been the standard for how long?
Why?

When homosexual partners can procreate with one another, I'll be first to grant them the right to marriage.

Where do we draw the line when it comes to marriage?

Brother & Brother?
Sister & Sister?
Brother & Sister?
Cousins?
Fathers and daughters?
Mothers and sons?
Mothers and daughters?
Fathers and sons?
Adults and juveniles?
Aunts and Uncles with nieces and nephews?
Grandparents and other immediate family members?
Animals?

If they "love" each other (the defense for gay marriage)... then why not let everyone marry anyone and anything?

Where do you draw a line in the sand?
And if that line in the sand is at Gay Marriage... WHY?
You're a bigot...
...so goes the argument against those who do not support gay Marriage.

.
Click to expand...

Because same sex relationships isnt wrong like incestry and horse "riding" (and not literally) is, thats why. Dont be ignorant by comparing having sex with another animal to same sex relationships, and dont even bother comparing it to incest because unless the other guy is in your family you cant even compare.
The bigot is you my friend, who cannot make a valid argument against me because your only true concerns behind gay marriage is the fact that your homophobic.
 
American said:
Yes there is, most people in this country don't support gay marriage.
Click to expand...

What two consenting adults want to do that doesn't harm anyone else isn't anyone else's business. That includes having the freedom to enter into contracts, and marriage is nothing but a contract.
 
zimmer said:
Heterosexual marriage has been the standard for how long?
Why?

When homosexual partners can procreate with one another, I'll be first to grant them the right to marriage.

Where do we draw the line when it comes to marriage?

Brother & Brother?
Sister & Sister?
Brother & Sister?
Cousins?
Fathers and daughters?
Mothers and sons?
Mothers and daughters?
Fathers and sons?
Adults and juveniles?
Aunts and Uncles with nieces and nephews?
Grandparents and other immediate family members?
Click to expand...

All irrelevant to the discussion at hand, which is the marriage of two non-related homos or lesbians.

zimmer said:
Animals?
Click to expand...

Will Dr. Doolittle be officiating so we can get the animal's consent on record?
 
BulletWounD said:
It doesn't matter. If it were an orientation-neutral orgy like Mardi Gras has become, you might have a point. It's undeniable that the image perpetuated by gay pride parades is detrimental to those gays that do not fit the stereotype.
Click to expand...

I don't find the imagery portrayed at Pride parades offensive or detrimental at all. I find it entertaining and fun. In all the cities I've lived in, the Pride parade is a great event where people of all ages, orientations, races, genders, etc. come together to have a bit of harmless fun. It's the one period of the year where people who are normally disapproved of by the rest of society get to shamelessly express who they are without feeling insecure. It's not just a party anyway, as these events always have activists and educated members of the community present who are working to educate the public on important issues.

What a fraction of the gay population chooses to do for a few days out of the year has no bearing on their rights in the nation. They can have a party in the street all they want, and you have no right to tell them not to. Additionally, the events they organize are not a precursor to whether or not they are deserving of the right to marry.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
All irrelevant to the discussion at hand, which is the marriage of two non-related homos or lesbians.
Click to expand...

No... it's relevant because people want to change the law and the norm of society for millennia, and if this norm is to be discarded on a political whim, what else do you want to discard?

Most of us believe it is between a man and a woman.
That is our line in the sand.

What is your line in the sand and why?

.
 
Last edited:
No... it's relevant because people want to change the law and the norm of society for millennia, and if this norm is to be discarded on a political whim, what else do you want to discard?
Click to expand...

What used to be norm for society a "millennia" ago is considered backwards and wrong to society today. Modern society is different to how society was then, and our laws and policies have adapted to better suit us. Allowing homosexual marriage is just another change in policy being adapted to better suit our ever changing society. Not to change laws to allow homosexuals to marry because its been like that for a long time is hardly an excuse. Its just evidence that you have no argument.

Most of us believe it is between a man and a woman.
That is our line in the sand.

What is your line in the sand and why?
Click to expand...

Gays amount to 1 in every 10 people. It seems your line in the sand isnt the only one.
 
zimmer said:
No... it's relevant because people want to change the law and the norm of society for millennia, and if this norm is to be discarded on a political whim, what else do you want to discard?
.
Click to expand...

Ages ago females were considered property under the law.
 
zimmer said:
No... it's relevant because people want to change the law and the norm of society for millennia, and if this norm is to be discarded on a political whim, what else do you want to discard?

Most of us believe it is between a man and a woman.
That is our line in the sand.

What is your line in the sand and why?

.
Click to expand...
"Marriage" can stay between a man and a woman. You can have that word and define it however you want for all I care. I just want the law out of it. It's not the role of government to define what a "marriage" is, for you, me, or anyone else.
 
Binary_Digit said:
I think a better question is: Why should the state be in the business of "recognizing" who is fit to marry in the first place? Or what the definition of "marriage" is? Or even deciding anything about marriage whatsoever?

Ok, so that was 3 questions, but I think they're all better. :2razz:
Click to expand...
Of course, I agree with you 100%. I was merely throwing a wrench in their argument. ;)
 
Hatuey said:
Shhh! Niggers and fags aren't the same silly! Stop giving examples of why mob rule is unacceptable in a democracy that gives all it's members the same rights, privileges etc. through the Constitution.
Click to expand...
Shhh, for the purpose of comparison on civil rights they are since both are a minority being denied rights. As was rightly pointed out to me, the Constitution doesn't grant/give any rights but rather, limits the government.
 
Last edited:
BulletWounD said:
Some gays don't help the situation with their audacious displays of flaming faggotry ("Gay Pride Parades")
Click to expand...
Why are you so shaken up by this display? Does it make you feel kinda tingly... down there? :roll: get over it, you probably bitch to anyone who will listen about spinning rims or music pumping out of car windows (if it's not billy ray cyrus) and sideways hats... grow up or come out of the closet, whichever it is.
 
BulletWounD said:
I'm just saying when people think gay, that's what they think of - total flamers. A lot of gays go a long way to promoting this image.
Click to expand...
So? A lot of people go out of their way to promote an image. If it bothers you it's really your problem, not theirs. I suppose you are disgusted at women exposing their tramp stamp and the top of their "T" strap, right?
 
Binary_Digit said:
nothing you say can change the fact that gays and lesbians do not have the same rights as heterosexuals - the right to marry the adult citizen with whom they are in love.
Click to expand...

Nor do polygamists. Why isn't anyone championing their "rights?"

danarhea said:
I completely agree with you here. Whatever the individual states decide, it is none of the Federal government's business. Same with abortion.
Click to expand...

No, this is completely wrong. Individual rights are not subject to the authority of the government, federal or state. If something is a right then the States are duty-bound to uphold it.
 
People like this creep me out...

zimmer said:
Heterosexual marriage has been the standard for how long?
Why?
Click to expand...
When you say heterosexual marriage, what form are you referring to? One man and many wives? The contract for political, social or financial gain?

When homosexual partners can procreate with one another, I'll be first to grant them the right to marriage.
Click to expand...
I guess any marriage that doesn't result in children should be disallowed or disolved. What's your time line for disolution, 1 year without producing a child? 2 years? Maybe you'd like to be generous and make it 5 years...

Your *snicker* "argument" was the very first one ever debunked, how can you be so mindless as to continue to use it? You must have forgotten which crowd you're talking to, we're not the Sunday hive mind.

Where do we draw the line when it comes to marriage?

Brother & Brother?
Sister & Sister?
Brother & Sister?
Cousins?
Fathers and daughters?
Mothers and sons?
Mothers and daughters?
Fathers and sons?
Adults and juveniles?
Aunts and Uncles with nieces and nephews?
Grandparents and other immediate family members?
Animals?
Click to expand...
How about consenting adults? So simple even a xian can understand it... no offense... :blastem:

If they "love" each other (the defense for gay marriage)... then why not let everyone marry anyone and anything?
Click to expand...
Yeah, why not? As long as they are consenting adults... :confused:

Where do you draw a line in the sand?
Click to expand...
Consenting adults.
And if that line in the sand is at Gay Marriage... WHY?
Click to expand...
Why not?

You're a bigot...
...so goes the argument against those who do not support gay Marriage.
Click to expand...
That doesn't quite make sense... how can you be a bigot if you're inclusive?
 
Hatuey said:
Shhh! Niggers and fags aren't the same silly! Stop giving examples of why mob rule is unacceptable in a democracy that gives all it's members the same rights, privileges etc. through the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Psst! What about economic populism? You know, when people vote to take money away from others? Is that okay, too? I mean, since you hate mob-rule so much I figured I'd ask.
 
zimmer said:
No... it's relevant because people want to change the law and the norm of society for millennia, and if this norm is to be discarded on a political whim, what else do you want to discard?
Click to expand...
Our society hasn't been around for millennia so your premise is false. If you mean marriage then you should be aware that the current definition in our country has only been so since around 1879 when polygamy was banned.

Most of us believe it is between a man and a woman.
That is our line in the sand.
Click to expand...
That doesn't make you right.

What is your line in the sand and why?
Click to expand...
Consenting adults. Because you and the government hav eno business sticking your nose in a private citizens private life.
 
Consenting adults. Because you and the government hav eno business sticking your nose in a private citizens private life.
Click to expand...

Marriage is an invitation for the government to interfere in the lives of its citizens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom