• 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!

Gay Marriage Fails to get on California Ballot

And it's the incest card. You need bestiality and polygamy for the full red herring trifecta though.

Wrong, marry only for the benefits........no sex..........

You really crack me up redress....You have all this love for gays and gay marriage and none for polygamists........as for bestiality you brought it up,,,not us.........
 
NP, of all the people I know who are racist, bigoted, sexist, whatever, they are ALL far right CONSERVATIVES. Does that mean that all conservatives are that way? No, it just means that if you are a bigot, a sexist, a racist, odds are that you are one of those uber-cons who dwell in the far right wing of political fantasy land.
And before anyone gets their panties in a twist, I feel the same about the far left.
Extreme adherance to far out idealism is not an indication of intellect, whether it be righty tighties, or leftie loosies.
All people like that can do is make their party look bad....if that is your purpose, congratulations. You have won that battle. But, you lose the war.


You are so wrong...........Because a person has a different opinion on Gay marriage does not make him a bigot or homophobe........A lot of you lefties are against polygamy marriage.........Do I call you names because of that? All we ask is the same respect........You preach tolerance for gays, yet you are the intolerant ones when it comes to polygamy...........
 
I'm not upset, I'm just a little concerned that you are not listening to me. If you wanna keep calling me names (left wing, your friend, etc.) then have at it. Otherwise please get back to the issue.

My point was that I am only calling you out, only you. If you don't believe that then I guess this whole thing is pointless and we can stop arguing over the little things so we can continue on topic.

In me experience, yes, most racists I have met or seen have been conservatives, but that's doesn't mean I'm picking on conservatives in general, I'm picking you. Please understand that.

Because a person has a different opinion on Gay marriage does not make him a bigot or homophobe........A lot of you lefties are against polygamy marriage.........Do I call you names because of that? All we ask is the same respect........You preach tolerance for gays, yet you are the intolerant ones when it comes to polygamy...........
 
It really is. Makes me wonder what the point is.

Tell me, have you ever changed anyone's mind on here? I don't believe I have.

Not to my knowledge, but I don't argue this topic to convince those I am arguing with, but to convince those who might be quietly reading. For those, I think the most compelling argument is that marriages create a more stable environment for raising children, either their own, adopted, or fostered.
 
Wrong, marry only for the benefits........no sex..........

You really crack me up redress....You have all this love for gays and gay marriage and none for polygamists........as for bestiality you brought it up,,,not us.........

And apparently the reason for bringing them up went way over your head. They are all red herrings. We are not talking about legalizing incest, bestiality, nor polygamy. Any one who wants to argue those points is free to, but it is not the topic, and has exactly jack **** to do with gay marriage.
 
Because a person has a different opinion on Gay marriage does not make him a bigot or homophobe........A lot of you lefties are against polygamy marriage.........Do I call you names because of that? All we ask is the same respect........You preach tolerance for gays, yet you are the intolerant ones when it comes to polygamy...........

You assume that you know what I think about polygamy, when the truth is I really don't care, its none of my business, just as gay marriage is none of my business. If you wanna divert the issue and talk about polygamy, I'm sure we can find the appropriate thread.

If you wanna play the opinion card go ahead, because both you know and I know that it makes every discussion completely pointless. If you wanna continue down that road then I quit.

I refuse to engage in a pointless, circular discussion with you.
 
Last edited:
Because a person has a different opinion on Gay marriage does not make him a bigot or homophobe........A lot of you lefties are against polygamy marriage.........Do I call you names because of that? All we ask is the same respect........You preach tolerance for gays, yet you are the intolerant ones when it comes to polygamy...........
Being polyamorous, I'm all in favor of marriages between more than two people provided everyone is consenting
 
Because a person has a different opinion on Gay marriage does not make him a bigot or homophobe........A lot of you lefties are against polygamy marriage.........Do I call you names because of that? All we ask is the same respect........You preach tolerance for gays, yet you are the intolerant ones when it comes to polygamy...........

Again...Navy....your right to have a different opinion....true....does not make you a bigot or homophobe.

However, your arrogant belief that others should be forced to live my your beliefs DOES.

Your right to your opinion ends where it directly impacts an individuals right to make the most intimate decisions in their own lives.
 
excellent. so my suit to allow me to marry my two cousins will definitely succeed then?

It could. It would depend. If you understand equal protection analysis, you will know that your example would not be analyzed under the same criteria as gay marriage.

When the Supreme Court looks at an equal protection issue, they make two classifications: Does the infringement affect a "suspect class" and is the right involved a fundamental one?

The court then engages in an analysis involving "scrutiny" based on the classification. "Strict Scrutiny" requiring the state to show a "compelling" governmental interest to justify the discrimination (if the group is a suspect class). Intermediate scrutiny requiring the state to show an "important" governmental interest for a quasi suspect class. And "standard" scrutiny, requiring the state to show a "legitimate" governmental interest for all other cases.

Gays have generally been analyzed under the intermediate level. Your example would likely be analyzed under the standard scrutiny.

Thus for the governmental restriction against gay marriage, the government will have to show an "important" governmental interest in order for the discrimination to be upheld.

In your example the government would only have to show a "legitimate" governmental interest....a much lower standard.
 
You assume that you know what I think about polygamy, when the truth is I really don't care, its none of my business, just as gay marriage is none of my business. If you wanna divert the issue and talk about polygamy, I'm sure we can find the appropriate thread.

If you wanna play the opinion card go ahead, because both you know and I know that it makes every discussion completely pointless. If you wanna continue down that road then I quit.

I refuse to engage in a pointless, circular discussion with you.

OK fair enough.....How do you feel about brothers and sisters marrying or fathers and daughters strictly for the benefits, no sex involved....is that ok?
 
Being polyamorous, I'm all in favor of marriages between more than two people provided everyone is consenting

OK fair enough.....How do you feel about brothers and sisters marrying or fathers and daughters strictly for the benefits, no sex involved....is that ok?
 
OK fair enough.....How do you feel about brothers and sisters marrying or fathers and daughters strictly for the benefits, no sex involved....is that ok?

I might have come in on this late, but

A: are you compating daughter and father marriage to homosexuality?

B: Not all homosexuals marry for benefits, as much as straight couples do.
 
Its really so great to see the citizens of La La land tell the gay agenda that when it comes to gay marriage stick it in your ear again........
 
Its really so great to see the citizens of La La land tell the gay agenda that when it comes to gay marriage stick it in your ear again........

Do you have a clue how the initiative process works? Obviously not....because this comment makes zero sense.
 
I might have come in on this late, but

A: are you compating daughter and father marriage to homosexuality?

B: Not all homosexuals marry for benefits, as much as straight couples do.

1. I am saying if gays can do it so should daughter and father and gays always say they want to marry for the benefits they receive.........
 
Do you have a clue how the initiative process works? Obviously not....because this comment makes zero sense.

Makes sense to me.........The few militants gays and liberals like you could not get it on the ballot..........
 
1. I am saying if gays can do it so should daughter and father and gays always say they want to marry for the benefits they receive.........

Your argument makes no sense. If a straight couple can marry for benefits then can't anyone? its the same basic argument.

Do you not believe that Gays can marry for love? Or are they all just blood sucking demons?
 
Your argument makes no sense. If a straight couple can marry for benefits then can't anyone? its the same basic argument.

Do you not believe that Gays can marry for love? Or are they all just blood sucking demons?

1. no they can't, thankfully its against the law........

2. I don't know why gays want to marry, they say for the benefits....I never thought about blood sucking demons.....is that what you think?
 
I might have come in on this late, but

A: are you compating daughter and father marriage to homosexuality?

B: Not all homosexuals marry for benefits, as much as straight couples do.

He's destroying two popular arguments being used by gay marriage supporters.

One, that it should be allowed if people consent.

Obviously that is a general and easily broken argument when factoring in other alternative lifestyles where the same criteria can be applied like polygamy and incest even pedophilia.

Now this frustrates gay marriage supporters because many do not support some of those other lifestyles but the point being made is that using the flimsy argument of "people who love each other" or "people who consent" is not a valid argument since it can be applied to so many other alternative lifestyles.

The reality is the expansion of the law to allow gay marriage does put these alternative lifestyles into play when arguments are used as above that put them into play.

The second is comparing gay marriage to racial injustice. Race is a provable genetic trait from generation to generation. Homosexuality has never been proven to be genetic and therefore the direct comparison cannot be made.

Heterosexuality is genetically proven by recognizing the only method for natural procreation is through heterosexual sex, the biological sexual reaction in both sexes is preparation for procreation ie heterosexual sex and nearly 100% of the world's population is heterosexual.

There is no biological homosexual reaction for homosexuals that differs from heterosexuals. Both sexes' bodies react to sexual stimuli in the same manner ie for procreation. For example, a homosexual man still produces sperm, his urethra still closes for the sperm to be "delivered" so to speak during the height of sexual pleasure despite the fact he is engaging in homosexual sex which has no need for sperm and vise versa for women and their biological sexual reaction.

If a genetic argument is to be made for homosexuality, there should at least be some biological sexual stimuli that is inherently homosexual in nature at minimum to even consider such a claim before you can honestly compare it to race.

Simply claiming attraction or "they love each other" does not fulfill this requirement.
 
Makes sense to me.........The few militants gays and liberals like you could not get it on the ballot..........

I'm not even going to try to educate you how it works. Suffice it to say, this wasn't an election. It was about paid signature gatherers not getting it on the ballot. The gay community is very split about whether the timing was right to get it on this ballot. In the end, the supporters didn't have the financial backing to hire enough signature gatherers to get it on the ballot.
Dont fool yourself Navy...this has nothing to do with what you are trying to claim....but then again....things rarely are.
 
OK fair enough.....How do you feel about brothers and sisters marrying or fathers and daughters strictly for the benefits, no sex involved....is that ok?
I'm understandably curious what this has to do with the topic at hand and what your ORIGINAL question had to do with the topic at hand.
 
OK fair enough.....How do you feel about brothers and sisters marrying or fathers and daughters strictly for the benefits, no sex involved....is that ok?

What right do I have to interfere in their personal decisions? It affects no one, there is no danger.

If there's a big enough movement for that kind of thing then I say go ahead. The issue is that gay marriage has a big enough movement, and has had one for decades.
 
I'm not even going to try to educate you how it works. Suffice it to say, this wasn't an election. It was about paid signature gatherers not getting it on the ballot. The gay community is very split about whether the timing was right to get it on this ballot. In the end, the supporters didn't have the financial backing to hire enough signature gatherers to get it on the ballot.
Dont fool yourself Navy...this has nothing to do with what you are trying to claim....but then again....things rarely are.


Why is that DD?
 
Cilogy;1058688125[B said:
]What right do I have to interfere in their personal decisions? It affects no one, there is no danger.[/B]

If there's a big enough movement for that kind of thing then I say go ahead. The issue is that gay marriage has a big enough movement, and has had one for decades.

Will you pay all the taxes for me to provide the extra benefits if we allowed anyone to marry that wanted to......If you liberals would pay all the millions it will take I am sure no conservative would care...............
 
Will you pay all the taxes for me to provide the extra benefits if we allowed anyone to marry that wanted to......If you liberals would pay all the millions it will take I am sure no conservative would care...............

So you are saying gays should not be allowed to marry because it costs money?
 
Back
Top Bottom