• 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' columnist blasts same-sex marriage

apdst said:
The guy has more credibility on the subject than you do. His sexuality makes him untouchable.
Click to expand...

apdst said:
Just holding the Leftists to their own standard. Don't like it? You people need to police your ranks.
Click to expand...

Police yourself.

Why not lead by example.
 
rocket88 said:
However, the last person I want to sleep with at this point is my ex-wife. I'd rather kiss a wookie.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think Wookie nookie would be quite interesting.:lamo
 
Why is gay in quotation marks is he "gay" the same way the OP is "intelligent?"
 
joko104 said:
Many people from every political spectrum think the government should get out of the marriage...
Click to expand...

...and continue to have no argument for it.
 
I just cant pay attention to any of these stories anymore. The fight for gay marriage is over. Rearguard actions will continue for years perhaps, but the battle is over. Slowly but surely (perhaps even quickly) gay marriage will be legalized in every state in the Union over the course of my lifetime. Everyone in my generation knows it. People who post about this in the negative are just bitter and haven't (and may never) adjust to the broader cultural changes taking place in this country. :shrug:
 
Sherman123 said:
People who post about this in the negative are just bitter and haven't (and may never) adjust to the broader cultural changes taking place in this country. :shrug:
Click to expand...
I still have older relatives who struggle with racial minorities. They know what their stance is and simply refuse to change their ways, even if they are considered as radically intolerant by society. These relatives of mine cannot (or do not) want to grasp the idea that how they were raised; their church's, parents', hometown's, etc. beliefs were all wrong.

apdst said:
Anyone that disagrees with a gay person's stance on gay marriage, is a homophobe. I'n sorry, but that's your standard, not mine.
Click to expand...
If by "homophobe" you can describe someone who is unempathetic, and/or in denial that their position is indefensible in regards to liberty, personal responsibility and good will towards his neighbor? Yes, I would hold that as my standard.

...

There are many things that people do that I consider to be immoral. But I don't oppose their right to do it. I don't claim personal or collect ownership over the world. I don't throw it in their face. Divorce, for example. I don't believe divorce is a good thing, because I believe it destroys the lives of the partners and (especially) their kids. However, I want them to still have a choice, because it's a kind and respectable thing for me to do for another human being. Heck - I don't know their situation. I can't claim to know what is best for their life, and therefore dictate it. I want them to make a bad situation better. For the LGBT community, that's encouraging commitment and dedication. That's encouraging fidelty, personal responsibility and reverence for a human tradition of respect and monogamy. Do I want old gay people to all be single and lonely, and therefore be forced to depend on our social security because there is no loving partner? Absolutely not! I want there to be strong families, mutual care and self-support.
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
I just do not get how this "ideal" relates to marriage.
Click to expand...


I don't think he was specifically, CT. I followed your conversation as it seemed to be the most promising for actual progress on the issue. I believe he was stating that naturally (in the common understanding of the word without redefinition) men and women together conceive children, and that that alone is no guarantee that said children will be perfect little adults, however, contemporary context needs to be addressed when looking at the "history" of child rearing. Anthropology tells us that, pretty much up until perhaps the last few centuries men and women had children not for the sake of raising wonderful little copies of themselves, or a notion of being cognitive of some passing on of one's genes, but rather mostly, or in most cases outside of aristocracy, men and women bore children for work. Yes, we created children so they could work the fields, help on the hunt, you get the picture. Fast forward to the last hundred years, and even then we can see this pattern in a lot, (although starting to change) of families in all parts of the world including here in western society. Having children in poorer to middle class environments was seen as a way to increase your total family output over time. In higher income brackets children were seen as a novelty, a status of sorts, a way to keep up the family pedigree. Today, children are born out of love, and in most cases (Well ideally most cases) we have them to pass on our genes, to further our legacy, to adore them, and to benefit from their lives.

In a sense, if we're being truthful, children have gone from being born into what is essentially slavery, to now being the slave-masters. We the parents, have become their slaves. Ironic isn't it?

of course the topic deserves a much larger discussion, and my one paragraph (I hope is understood) is merely a summary of my opinions on the topic, but nowhere near as comprehensive as it needs to be to be better understood, but I think you get the point I was trying to make. In some ways I agree with you on this subject that marriage, like child rearing has no definitive history or purpose. But as a society, I think that we have a duty and a responsibility to determine how WE ourselves proceed into the future on both aspects of the debate.

Tim-
 
zimmer said:
Finally some sanity.
Click to expand...

I don't think the history works out. 10,000 years of global acceptance and social enforcement of the 1 dude/1 chick/kids structure? Not sure it's a true statement there.

Regardless, when the Government took the Marriage License, marriage became property of State. So if you want to bitch, you gotta attack that thing first.
 
mfriedmanrocks said:
We can. However, the nature of the family unit comes from human beings procreating and the social consequences of that. We can intellectualize it all we want but fundamentally, that it what it is. I'm coming from the basic view of nature. A child is created from a mother and a father. I believe we have to come away from that fact to understand the challenges of raising a child under other circumstances. The debate today is to overheated and personal, we should look at it from outside the box and not how it will effect gay people, but children.
Click to expand...

Actually, in prehistoric societies, the group basically raised the children, and fathers were often unknown. Esp. the biological father. Males came and went with females.

We can see that many many hetero marriages do not succeed and even when they do....the stories of child abuse are common.

TWO parents makes raising kids easier...financially and timewise (attention). Those things do add to quality of life but it's obvious as well that single parents manage to raise kids just fine.

Few studies have shown any sociological differences in the kids from straight marriages or gay. Oh wait...does it matter if the straight people are actually married? What if they are just living together?

Gay families are no different in the way they lead their lives. They eat dinner, go to soccer practice, take vacations, take out the garbage, to to PTA, join in community activities, go to church, etc etc etc. They get along...or they dont.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Just because he's gay this somehow gives this tired old argument credence?

The argument is bull****.

I became a father a week and a half ago when my beautiful wife gave birth to a baby boy.

We're trying our best, but we're by no means perfect parents and from what I've experienced so far, all a child really needs is loving, supporting parents who give a crap about it...

This world is far from perfect, there's ALOT of bad parents out there and again, good parents are good parents, they'll never be perfect but if those good parents happen to be both of the same sex... so be it.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but your beliefs are totally ignorant and based on feelings and not what the best studies have actually shown.
 
spud_meister said:
I agree with OP. Divorce should be banned because it harms children.
Click to expand...

I'll go further. In case of divorce, custody should by default go to the father.
 
Kobie said:
Marriage is, pretty much, a contract. Someone has to be able to legally enforce said contract, or oversee its termination.

Marriage hasn't been a religious-only institution for a LONG time, be it in the U.S. or anywhere else. Back in the day, when adultery was prosecuted, adultery was not considered a sex crime. It was considered a property crime.



Well yeah.
Click to expand...

Why does there have to be any legal contract at all? Just in case a relationship needs to be 'dissolved?'
 
OldWorldOrder said:
Then there can be a different contract for people wanting that recognition by the government. Two people telling each other (and their god, I guess, sometimes) that they're gonna be together forever should...ya know...be between the two of them.
Click to expand...

Why should the govt create a different contract???? What would be different in the stipulations? Why do we need to create MORE bureaucracy and BIGGER govt? How would they be different? can see how they "might" be different to religious groups but that would be up to them. As you said...between those 2 people and God.
 
apdst said:
Gays and minorities have always been untouchable, as far as the Libbos are concerned. Disagreeibg with a gay dude makes one a homophobe...yes?
Click to expand...

So that's why you keep telling people you're black. You keep on thinking that if you tell people you're black, your opinions will be untouchable. Damn, I bet that didn't work out how you thought it would after 4 years on the forum.
 
Lursa said:
Why should the govt create a different contract???? What would be different in the stipulations? Why do we need to create MORE bureaucracy and BIGGER govt? How would they be different? can see how they "might" be different to religious groups but that would be up to them. As you said...between those 2 people and God.
Click to expand...
It wouldn't be more, it'd be less.
 
zimmer said:
Finally some sanity.
Click to expand...

OMG THE CHILLUN!!! This is the same bull**** argument thrown out against interracial marriage back in the day. There is no actual evidence to back up the claim. I think a child has the right to two gay parents who are loving and supportive as opposed to two straight ones who can't get their **** together.

Gotta love it when morons describe equality as a "power grab."
 
OldWorldOrder said:
All of this begs the question of why the state cares about marriage at all. It shouldn't. It should remain a religious institution. But, if the state demands to be involved, it should let gay people marry, too.

Seems pretty simple. The only people against it are jihading cultural conservatives.
Click to expand...

This is my view on it 100%. No "some people have marriages and some people have civil unions." There is no reason to ever have "seperate but equal" laws for different groups of people.
 
apdst said:
But, you can bet your ass that if a Rightie criticized a gay columnist, he wouldn't see the end of being branded a homophobe and YOU goddamn well know, ma'am.
Click to expand...

This member of the LGBT community has to agree with this. Homophobe is thrown out WAY too much.
 
apdst said:
Anyone that disagrees with a gay person's stance on gay marriage, is a homophobe. I'n sorry, but that's your standard, not mine.
Click to expand...

Now see, I agreed with your earlier statement but this one I dont. You dont know what an individual person of any group will believe or say.
 
phattonez said:
Sorry, but your beliefs are totally ignorant and based on feelings and not what the best studies have actually shown.
Click to expand...

Could you produce those supposed studies please?
 
Jetboogieman said:
. . . all a child really needs is loving, supporting parents who give a crap about it...
Click to expand...

That's the sort of thinking that makes juvenile detention a growth industry.

One of the unpleasant little truths that Moderns have so much trouble with is that their beautiful little baby is a natural savage, and that in less than 4 years the rudimentary concepts of civilization, morality and the much devalued virtue obedience must be rigorously, and often painfully imprinted upon it.

The older I get, the more that I think that constant expressions of affection rather than stern expectation damage the adults that children become, and by extension society.

I have come to believe that the relatively young idea that childhood should be happy, is a culturally decadent and suicidal one. (Look up the norms for child rearing in Colonial America if you believe me not, an consider that adults that resulted then, as opposed to the lifelong adolescents that we produce now.)
 
Lursa said:
Why does there have to be any legal contract at all? Just in case a relationship needs to be 'dissolved?'
Click to expand...

Again, then who handles power of attorney, inheritance rights, etc.?
 
phattonez said:
Sorry, but your beliefs are totally ignorant and based on feelings and not what the best studies have actually shown.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but your beliefs are totally ignorant and based on your feelings and biases and not what the best studies have actually shown.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom