• 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!

Opinions on Homosexuality

Are you for or against gay rights?

  • For Gay Rights

    Votes: 61 95.3%
  • Against Gay Rights

    Votes: 3 4.7%

  • Total voters
    64
I'm not for gay rights, i'm for the rights of people in general. That is why I say they should be allowed to have rights.
 
A completely subject judgment that is not based on any objective evidence whatsoever, but is rather based upon religious attitudes, many of which are inherently irrational.



Nobody is rational about sex.







An entirely rational man would make a few deposits to the sperm bank, then having done his duty to his species, he'd have himself neutered so that his dick couldn't lead him around by the libedo and get him in trouble. :mrgreen:
 
Am I for SSM and homosexuals being able to adopt? Yes.

Am I for taking away the rights of states to define marriage? No.

Marriage being defined by the state wasn't a problem until the homos wanted to get married too.
 
Is there a point in the history of mankind where the state hasn't defined marriage? It didn't seem to be an issue until the homos wanted to get marriage.

I think he meant "states" as in the fifty states.

As to your second point, interracial marriage.
 
I think he meant "states" as in the fifty states.

As to your second point, interracial marriage.

Not sure what you mean but I think you should read up on your civil rights history. Opposition to interracial marriage wasn't based around an opposition to state recognition of marriage. It was based around opposition to the interracial marriage itself (miscegenation laws). As a matter of fact states had laws which made it a point to not interracial marriage (most of them were still active up until the late 60s in the Southern US).
 
Not sure what you mean but I think you should read up on your civil rights history. Opposition to interracial marriage wasn't based around an opposition to state recognition of marriage. It was based around opposition to the interracial marriage itself (miscegenation laws). As a matter of fact states had laws which made it a point to not interracial marriage (most of them were still active up until the late 60s in the Southern US).

Alright my bad i misunderstood your position.

But a lot of the opposition to gay marriage is based on the opposition to gay marriage itself, wouldn't you say?
 
I am for the elimination of legalized discrimination, period. I believe it to be unconstitutional to single out any minority group, and forbid them to legally participate in something that every other adult in the country is allowed... marriage. States that are backward enough to discriminate by banning SSM should not be allowed to do so, and a federal mandate should ensure the rights of all homosexuals to marriage anywhere in this country, and force that marriage to be acknowledged for all legal purposes that are granted to heterosexual spouses.
 
this thread is asking peoples' opinions on issues of gay rights.

its very rude for people to then be attacked, for giving their opinions...especially if they do it politely & civily.

.......this thread wasn't created to trap & ambush folks.
 
that's very rude.

Don't you have somebody to accuse of being an antisemite or something? Run along now and go be offended elsewhere.
 
this thread is asking peoples' opinions on issues of gay rights.

its very rude for people to then be attacked, for giving their opinions...especially if they do it politely & civily.

.......this thread wasn't created to trap & ambush folks.

If you're referring to me and Kal, Thunder, i didn't "attack" you. I merely asked you a question about what I perceive to be an inconsistency in your position, (a question which you subsequently failed to answer). You are on a debate site. Debating is kinda what goes on here, y'know? Get your beliefs challenged by other posters and all that?
 
Last edited:
Alright my bad i misunderstood your position.

But a lot of the opposition to gay marriage is based on the opposition to gay marriage itself, wouldn't you say?

Yes. That's precisely my point. The whole "The state shouldn't recognize marriage" is a schtick the intellectually dishonest religious fringes fall back on to justify their opposition to gay marriage. I wish there was a poll that showed how many people were against state recognition of marriage 30 years ago vs how many there are today. If compared to support for SSM I bet you that they'd both rise similarly. Legal or governmental recognition of gay marriage undermines the whole farce that is this "christian nation". We can't have that.

"States rights" is a fallback for whatever discrimination conservatives support.
 
Last edited:
Yes. That's precisely my point. The whole "The state shouldn't recognize marriage" is a schtick the intellectually dishonest religious fringes fall back on to justify their opposition to gay marriage. I wish there was a poll that showed how many people were against state recognition of marriage 30 years ago vs how many there are today. If compared to support for SSM I bet you that they'd both rise similarly. Legal or governmental recognition of gay marriage undermines the whole farce that is this "christian nation". We can't have that.

"States rights" is a fallback for whatever discrimination conservatives support.

There isn't a law out there that can't be considered discriminatory. :prof
 
this thread is asking peoples' opinions on issues of gay rights.

its very rude for people to then be attacked, for giving their opinions...especially if they do it politely & civily.

.......this thread wasn't created to trap & ambush folks.

Who in this thread is being attacked?
 
First of all, there is no such thing as gay rights, so I didnt vote in the poll. There are only individual rights that apply to each person equally. Among the rights you have is to associate with whomever you choose and engage in whatever living arrangements and sexual practices you wish with the only caveat being that they be between consenting adults. The issue isnt do you have the right to marry, it is must the state recognize any contractual arrangement as a marriage? And who decides? This doesnt strike me as an issue for judges to determine, but for the public to determine. Should marriage be between one man and one woman? Why not two men? Why not two men and one woman? Why not brother and sister? Father and son? That none of those groups can be rightly denied the freedom to choose to live in such arrangements is, or should be, beyond question. That society must recognize each of those arrangements as a marriage is another matter. And I believe it is one of those societal things that should be decided by popular vote.
 
First of all, there is no such thing as gay rights, so I didnt vote in the poll. There are only individual rights that apply to each person equally. Among the rights you have is to associate with whomever you choose and engage in whatever living arrangements and sexual practices you wish with the only caveat being that they be between consenting adults. The issue isnt do you have the right to marry, it is must the state recognize any contractual arrangement as a marriage? And who decides? This doesnt strike me as an issue for judges to determine, but for the public to determine. Should marriage be between one man and one woman? Why not two men? Why not two men and one woman? Why not brother and sister? Father and son? That none of those groups can be rightly denied the freedom to choose to live in such arrangements is, or should be, beyond question. That society must recognize each of those arrangements as a marriage is another matter. And I believe it is one of those societal things that should be decided by popular vote.

It shouldn't be a states rights issue or be put up to the public to vote on. Marriage is a fundemental right, this was determined by society and SCOTUS long before SSM came into the picture. And rights can only be denied if there is a legitimate state interest to do so. And the only legimate reason for the State to deny a fundemental right is if the exercise of that right in a particular situation is harmful to someone or to society as a whole.

As for the rest of your post. Three words for ya...Slippery Slope Fallacy. And every single one of them has been debunked many times over.
 
It shouldn't be a states rights issue or be put up to the public to vote on. Marriage is a fundemental right, this was determined by society and SCOTUS long before SSM came into the picture. And rights can only be denied if there is a legitimate state interest to do so. And the only legimate reason for the State to deny a fundemental right is if the exercise of that right in a particular situation is harmful to someone or to society as a whole.

As for the rest of your post. Three words for ya...Slippery Slope Fallacy. And every single one of them has been debunked many times over.
Then you wont mind debunking it for me now then. Besides, if I have a "fundamental" right to marry, then upon what grounds do you decide to deprive me of my right to marry two women?
 
Then you wont mind debunking it for me now then. Besides, if I have a "fundamental" right to marry, then upon what grounds do you decide to deprive me of my right to marry two women?

:roll: Here we go again...

Why not two men and one woman? (or visa versa)

Answer: Monogamy reduces major social problems of polygamist cultures

This applies to polyandry also which is what your example is.

Why not brother and sister?

Answer: In otherwords incest....Children born from incestuous relationships are more prone to both mental and physical problems.

Father and son?

Answer: Not allowed because a father (or mother) can subtly coerce their child into things like this. Making them think that it is OK and perfectly natural for daddy or mommy to be boinking their child...and this kind of teaching can last well into adulthood and even until they die. And if it is instead a "Father and daughter" or a "mother and son" type of deal then you again go into incest along with coercing.

Man/woman and animal marriage

Answer: The most basic ability in order to go into a marriage is that it MUST be consentual. And animals cannot consent.

Man/woman and child marriage

Answer: Not only is that pedophilia but again, a child cannot legally consent to a marriage because they are not mentally capable of doing so.

These are just simple, basic common sense answers. If you want more detail then I would suggest doing your homework and looking this stuff up yourself.
 
Last edited:
Then you wont mind debunking it for me now then. Besides, if I have a "fundamental" right to marry, then upon what grounds do you decide to deprive me of my right to marry two women?

Simple logistics of the marriage contract and the laws that currently go with it. The laws and contract are set up to deal with 2 people and only two people in the relationship. It would take some fundamental changes in those laws in order to accommodate more than two people in a marriage or a person being involved in two marriage contracts at the same time.
 
And there are still societies on this planet where children are "married".
Rights cannot be absolute and unlimited, obviously.
There are a great many men who are offended by the very idea of "gay" marriage , this includes me... but to vote against it ???
Why is our government even involved in marriage ?
I say - if two people or even a man and his horse wish to share the same bed - so be it...
But, as far as children go ....there has to be a limit......

Marriage is not about sex. Why is this such a hard concept for people to accept?

Legal marriage is about making two adults legally each other's closest relative. This comes with responsibilities, as well as rights and benefits because the government wants to encourage stable relationships since they have been shown to greatly benefit society as a whole. Plus, the government wants to try to protect adults who are in relationships of a certain type, particularly when each play different roles economically in what they provide to the relationship, when such relationships end poorly.
 
Well, forgive me if I think it's an irrational position for you to support gay marriage, but not want to call it gay marriage.

Especially since economically speaking, changing the name of marriage or having two separate institutions that do the same exact thing is a huge waste of money, tax-payer money, over the name of a legal contract.
 
Back
Top Bottom