• 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!

New York State Senate Votes Down Gay Marriage Bill

That always the cop out.....No evidence of that........

Sure there is Navy...you are just refusing to allow it into your closed-minded beliefs.

There's also evidence that she may have been gay all along and was simply "masking" her homosexuality in order to conform to society and what she was taught to believe.

Even YOU have to admit Navy....that there is a lot of societal pressure to be "straight". Our society is built around this and is the primary model that is perpetuated in movies, TV, etc. "Coming out" is difficult for many people. Some people such as Larry Craig will probably NEVER admit their true sexual orientation.

The bottom line is that you don't know.....and yet..... you take the side that discriminates rather than giving her the benefit of the doubt.
 
Last edited:
I am not sure if that is true. It is quite possible to identify young children who are more likely to become gay. CC I think it was linked to a study showing male children who where more effeminate where more likely to grow up to be gay.

Limp wrist & lisping are usually a good indicator, along with a penchant for 'girly things'....;)
 
Limp wrist & lisping are usually a good indicator, along with a penchant for 'girly things'....;)

I have a confession - last night when my wife watched "Glee" I peeked at it.
 
Re: Lots of people are legally excluded from marriage.

If you would have followed the thread, when I commented, the argument was given that since a homosexual couple cannot reproduce, they shouldn't be allowed to marry. That is not a valid reason, especially since a lesbian couple actually CAN reproduce through artificial insemination.

Please do try and keep up.

Which lesbian donates the semen?

You still haven't provided a compelling reason for altering the definition of marriage.
 
Re: Lots of people are legally excluded from marriage.

You still haven't provided a compelling reason for altering the definition of marriage.

Sure he has - if marriage is about nurturing children, gay families can have children. They can also have children from previous hetero marriages too, or adopt.

On the other hand, some hetero couples can't have children - should they be not allowed to marry?
 
Re: Lots of people are legally excluded from marriage.

Sure he has - if marriage is about nurturing children, gay families can have children. They can also have children from previous hetero marriages too, or adopt.

On the other hand, some hetero couples can't have children - should they be not allowed to marry?

In theory, they wouldn't know that until after marriage......;)
 
Re: Lots of people are legally excluded from marriage.

In theory, they wouldn't know that until after marriage......;)

Really? So my widowed grandmother who remarried when she was 70 didn't know she had gone through menopause? :doh
 
Re: Lots of people are legally excluded from marriage.

Which lesbian donates the semen?

You still haven't provided a compelling reason for altering the definition of marriage.

Again, procreation is not a requirement for marriage. Therefore saying gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because they can't procreate with each other is invalid.

The compelling reason is that rights are being denied to a group of people that:

#1 it is not illegal to be gay
#2 it is not illegal to be in a gay relationship between consenting adults (non family)
#3 It is not illegal for gays to raise children

Therefore it shouldn't be illegal for them to marry.

Now if you want to go down the slippery slope on polygamy, I have no problem with that either. Polygamy is more of an administrative problem than anything else.

You, however, have not presented a compelling reason to disallow gays to marry.
 
Re: Lots of people are legally excluded from marriage.

Really? So my widowed grandmother who remarried when she was 70 didn't know she had gone through menopause? :doh

Good point, I don't really think not being able to procreate should be an obstacle to marriage .....:)
 
Last edited:
Re: Lots of people are legally excluded from marriage.

Good point.....:)

Thousands and thousands of post-menopausal women get married every year. No chance whatsoever of having kids. Nobody gives it a second thought.

Clearly marriage isn't just about children.
 
Re: Lots of people are legally excluded from marriage.

Which lesbian donates the semen?

Sometimes hetero couples end up with a man who is infertile, and they use a semen donor.

Should their marriage be annuled?
 
Re: Lots of people are legally excluded from marriage.

Clearly marriage isn't just about children.

And they lose that argument because gays can legally raise children.
 
Re: Lots of people are legally excluded from marriage.

And they lose that argument because gays can legally raise children.

Another good point - the state allows a single gay person to have a child, but not marry as a gay couple, then they claim they want to nurture children through marriage?
 
Re: Lots of people are legally excluded from marriage.

Another good point - the state allows a single gay person to have a child, but not marry as a gay couple, then they claim they want to nurture children through marriage?

The state doesn't make that claim. Nowhere do you see the state making the claim that marriage is exclusively about raising children.

The only people making that specious claim are dense neanderthals who think they've come up with a legitimate argument against gay marriage. But upon even the lightest inspection, the argument falls apart as puerile grandstanding that it is.
 
Re: Lots of people are legally excluded from marriage.

Really? So my widowed grandmother who remarried when she was 70 didn't know she had gone through menopause? :doh

I believe they were referring to infertility prior to things like menopause.
 
Re: Lots of people are legally excluded from marriage.

Again, procreation is not a requirement for marriage. Therefore saying gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because they can't procreate with each other is invalid.

The compelling reason is that rights are being denied to a group of people that:

#1 it is not illegal to be gay
#2 it is not illegal to be in a gay relationship between consenting adults (non family)
#3 It is not illegal for gays to raise children

Therefore it shouldn't be illegal for them to marry.

Now if you want to go down the slippery slope on polygamy, I have no problem with that either. Polygamy is more of an administrative problem than anything else.

You, however, have not presented a compelling reason to disallow gays to marry.

But its already not allowed in many states. It is your job to convince us that those laws should not be in place and you have yet to provide a compelling reason to do so.

Nor have you answered the question on how you would limit this new "right" to just one alternative lifestyle or how you would exclude other alternative lifestyles who want the same thing.
 
Re: Lots of people are legally excluded from marriage.

Again, procreation is not a requirement for marriage. Therefore saying gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because they can't procreate with each other is invalid.

The compelling reason is that rights are being denied to a group of people that:

#1 it is not illegal to be gay
#2 it is not illegal to be in a gay relationship between consenting adults (non family)
#3 It is not illegal for gays to raise children

Therefore it shouldn't be illegal for them to marry.

Now if you want to go down the slippery slope on polygamy, I have no problem with that either. Polygamy is more of an administrative problem than anything else.

You, however, have not presented a compelling reason to disallow gays to marry.

In some states acts like anal sex and oral sex, the only thing two homosexual men can perform, are illegal. So if they get married, are we going to just assume it's a non-sexual, love based relationship?

:lol: crappy devil's advocate is crappy.
 
Re: Lots of people are legally excluded from marriage.

Nor have you answered the question on how you would limit this new "right" to just one alternative lifestyle or how you would exclude other alternative lifestyles who want the same thing.

You have to understand Equal Protection analysis to understand this point.

Waaaay too many people on this site have no idea how the analysis works and refuse to educate themselves.

There are three different levels of equal protection analysis depending upon the right/privlege infringed upon and the classification of the people upon whom the infringement is placed.

Not every group and/or every right is treated the same under equal protection.
Thus the argument that polygamy would be analyzed the same as gay marriage is simply ignorant.
Or that incestous marriage would be treated the same.
 
Re: Lots of people are legally excluded from marriage.

You have to understand Equal Protection analysis to understand this point.

Waaaay too many people on this site have no idea how the analysis works and refuse to educate themselves.

There are three different levels of equal protection analysis depending upon the right/privlege infringed upon and the classification of the people upon whom the infringement is placed.

Not every group and/or every right is treated the same under equal protection.
Thus the argument that polygamy would be analyzed the same as gay marriage is simply ignorant.
Or that incestous marriage would be treated the same.

Or to put it more simply, slippery slope is a fallacy.
 
Re: Lots of people are legally excluded from marriage.

You have to understand Equal Protection analysis to understand this point.

Actually that has no bearing on this whatsoever since there are hundreds of laws that go against that phrase.

Waaaay too many people on this site have no idea how the analysis works and refuse to educate themselves.

Waaaayy too many people think their opinion is the only educated point of view.

There are three different levels of equal protection analysis depending upon the right/privlege infringed upon and the classification of the people upon whom the infringement is placed.

Not every group and/or every right is treated the same under equal protection.
Thus the argument that polygamy would be analyzed the same as gay marriage is simply ignorant.
Or that incestous marriage would be treated the same.

I know its fun to come to a conclusion on your own without evidence but exactly how is polygamy different when it comes to who should be able to marry whom in the recognition by the state?
 
Last edited:
Re: Lots of people are legally excluded from marriage.

Or to put it more simply, slippery slope is a fallacy.

No its a reality until you can prove it isn't.
 
There is no evidence people are created gay. To beleive that is to believe a fallacy.

You are confused.

The claim was made that people are born gay,

Remember, I'm not the one who made the claim. I simply demanded evidence which no one could provide.

Yes there was a fruit fly theory which was exposed for the fraud that it is then a twin gay study in which not only was it never even 50% of the time accurate, it was even less when the twins did not grow up together.

You cannot prove a genetic link in even a low number like 60% so how can you claim that people are born gay?

Please, answer the original question.

Actually, you are confused. That is a very clear claim. You say that there is no evidence people are created gay. Back this up. Just saying it is true does not make it so.
 
Back
Top Bottom