• 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!

What is the primary reason behind your support for same-sex marriage? [W:539/549]

What is the primary reason behind your support for same-sex marriage?

  • Because I’m gay/lesbian

    Votes: 3 2.2%
  • Because it’s an equal rights issue

    Votes: 78 57.4%
  • Because gays/lesbians love each other too

    Votes: 6 4.4%
  • Because I despise bigots/haters

    Votes: 1 0.7%
  • Because I don’t want to be labeled a bigot

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I’m opposed to gay marriage

    Votes: 13 9.6%
  • I don’t care, either way

    Votes: 16 11.8%
  • Other

    Votes: 19 14.0%

  • Total voters
    136
  • Poll closed .
No it doesn't. It needs to be addressed in different legislation that covers this for every such couple. Whether we are talking about sperm donors, egg donors, surrogate mothers, or bio parents giving up their children for adoption, we need to make relinquishing of parental rights and responsibilities permanent. It should not be a "for the most part" thing for either side.

"accepting" parental rights and responsibilities also needs to be made permanent. the problem here was that since the other female in the relationship had none...the sperm donor was the only other person the state could go after. I agree that the issue is bigger than just SSM but it does apply to all SSM where children are involved
 
So a mutual respect and love for each other is not the primary reason for marriage?
Good point. Gender is the most fundamental reason, and love between man and a woman is the primary reason. Thank you, Observer.
 
I-Lets get this straight for the umpteenth time.I AM NOT A LIBERAL.If you can't argue on the merits without resorting to libel and deliberate lies,don't bother arguing at all.
2-Are you saying that just because my wife had her reproductive organs removed due to cancer,that somehow she is inferior to other women,or our marriage is inferior to those that can reproduce?What if she was born barren,are you going to say she's inferior also?

1. I didn't explicitly call you a liberal, sir. That was a general statement since you're supporting the liberals in this argument.
2. All of my arguments based on physical or mental characteristics are based on the intuitive assumption of "healthy". So the answer is no. If I asked you whether you prefer apple or cherry pie, it's fair to assume that I'm not being conniving and talking about the apple pie being made with rotten apples.
 
"accepting" parental rights and responsibilities also needs to be made permanent. the problem here was that since the other female in the relationship had none...the sperm donor was the only other person the state could go after. I agree that the issue is bigger than just SSM but it does apply to all SSM where children are involved

No it doesn't apply to "all" children from same sex marriages, since there are at least a few where the bio parent died or actually is completely anonymous and would have to be completely back tracked through the system to find.

And the problem is not the couple, but with the state itself. The state is the one with the issue of not accepting that the lesbian couple had agreed to take financial responsibility for the children. Therefore this is an issue mainly with this states' laws.

This does not happen nearly as often as you are purporting it to. The majority of states uphold that the sperm donor is not responsible for any financial obligations toward children begotten by his donation. This case will likely greatly harm sperm donation in Kansas if the sperm donor is completely made to pay child support because most men would not want to take that risk for just a little upfront cash or trying to be a helpful person.
 
Good point. Gender is the most fundamental reason, and love between man and a woman is the primary reason. Thank you, Observer.

No love period is the primary reason to marry. Genders are not even part of the equation except for a very few.
 
wow could you be anymore dishonest, its common knowledge, its a fact no matter how much you spin it

but since you like to play games i have no problem making you look even more silly and proving your statement are 100% lies

here a link for requirements in PA for a county, nothing about children or sexual intercourse
Washington County Register of Wills, Washington Marriage License, PA

you lose, you are 100% WRONG:laughat:
We're not talking about kids or intercourse, my friend.

It's between man and a woman. That's the argument.

marriage legal definition of marriage. marriage synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

I'd point and laugh at you too, but I'm not a five year old trapped in an adult's body. ;)
 
1. I didn't explicitly call you a liberal, sir. That was a general statement since you're supporting the liberals in this argument.
but you sure seemed to try to imply that I was.Tossing the ball and seeing what sticks so to speak.
And apparently,quite a number of libertarians on this tread seem to be taking the same position.
I am in fact supporting my own arguments.
2. All of my arguments based on physical or mental characteristics are based on the intuitive assumption of "healthy". So the answer is no. If I asked you whether you prefer apple or cherry pie, it's fair to assume that I'm not being conniving and talking about the apple pie being made with rotten apples.

You do know what they say about "assuming",don't you?
I have no way of knowing your current mental state,so you very well may be conniving.
Are you stating then that homosexuals are in some way "unhealthy"?
 
"accepting" parental rights and responsibilities also needs to be made permanent. the problem here was that since the other female in the relationship had none...the sperm donor was the only other person the state could go after. I agree that the issue is bigger than just SSM but it does apply to all SSM where children are involved

This statement needs to be generalized greatly. Society is a heck of a lot more harmonious when people realize and accept their roles. The female must accept the fact that she as to carry the child during pregnancy. From the day you have a kid, you need to accept your role as a parent, in particular the parent role associated with your gender. Confusion and controversy will arise if I start spending my work hours vacuuming or washing dishes tomorrow, because I have a role to fulfill by being employed as a mathematician. This is the source of many of our domestic conflicts.
 
Good point. Gender is the most fundamental reason, and love between man and a woman is the primary reason. Thank you, Observer.

Well sex does play a role in marriage it just so happens some people like the same-sex. They still love each other the same as any straight couple and want to get married.
 
Are you stating then that homosexuals are in some way "unhealthy"?

IMO, the APA had it right the first time when homosexuality was considered a mental illness. Regardless, two individuals of the same sex who are both physically healthy will not produce a child together. Hence a child was certainly not meant to have two parents of the same sex.

I oppose it also because the argument in favor can be applied to many other scenarios. The argument of "because they love each other" could be used by threesomes, siblings, or whoever in the world wants to claim they love each other and are committed.
 
Last edited:
The argument of "because they love each other" could be used by threesomes, siblings, are whoever in the world wants to claim they love each other and are committed.

but...but...but..."that's" different. my only problem with supporters of SSM. they want to claim it's about equal rights...until you want to extend that same right to the others you mentioned, then it is somehow different and it's not an "equal" right but a "new" right.

marriage is marriage and if you allow one set of consenting adults to get married...you should allow all groups of consenting adults to get married :shrug:
 
This statement needs to be generalized greatly. Society is a heck of a lot more harmonious when people realize and accept their roles. The female must accept the fact that she as to carry the child during pregnancy. From the day you have a kid, you need to accept your role as a parent, in particular the parent role associated with your gender. Confusion and controversy will arise if I start spending my work hours vacuuming or washing dishes tomorrow, because I have a role to fulfill by being employed as a mathematician. This is the source of many of our domestic conflicts.

Do you have an issue with my "manny"? He helps me take care of my children and will be the primary caregiver for them this month because my husband is in Bahrain and I have to go for my time in the reserves. He will be cooking, cleaning, vacuuming, helping with the potty training, shopping, and everything else that goes along with taking care of my children and my household. That is his job.

And marriages where the man takes on more household responsibilities are actually happier and more likely to last than those where the man only works outside the home.

Chores Make Men Happier - Men who help around the house have better sense of well-being: study
The link between divorce and men who help around the house - 05 - 2010 - News archive - News - News and media - Home
 
IMO, the APA had it right the first time when homosexuality was considered a mental illness. Regardless, two individuals of the same sex who are both physically healthy will not produce a child together. Hence a child was certainly not meant to have two parents of the same sex.
That's funny,I thought you said you were a mathematician,are you a license psychiatrist also?
While you are certainly entitled to your opinion,it doesn't necessarily mean it is correct,or that others have to accept it.

I oppose it also because the argument in favor can be applied to many other scenarios. The argument of "because they love each other" could be used by threesomes, siblings, are whoever in the world wants to claim they love each other and are committed.

You mean the same argument used by those that opposed interracial marriage?

“[T]he State's prohibition of interracial marriage . . . stands on the same
footing
as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage, or
the prescription of minimum ages at which people may
marry, and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally
incompetent.”
(Source: Excerpted United States Supreme Court oral argument
transcripts from Loving v. Virginia, from Peter Irons and Stephanie Guitton,
eds., May it Please the Court (1993) at 282-283, quoting Virginia Assistant
Attorney General R. D. McIlwaine, arguing for Virginia's ban on interracial marriages)
 
IMO, the APA had it right the first time when homosexuality was considered a mental illness. Regardless, two individuals of the same sex who are both physically healthy will not produce a child together. Hence a child was certainly not meant to have two parents of the same sex.

I oppose it also because the argument in favor can be applied to many other scenarios. The argument of "because they love each other" could be used by threesomes, siblings, or whoever in the world wants to claim they love each other and are committed.

The problem is that you are making up the true argument that takes place when it comes to this issue or any legal issue. It is not one sided. You have to take into merit both sides of all those arguments, not just the one side.
 
The most important and true bottom line is this:

The USofA is evolving towards accepting SSM.
It's just a matter of time.
There is no holding it back.

For many of us, even though we're not gay, and many are not liberals, we rejoice in this evolution.
 
We're not talking about kids or intercourse, my friend.

It's between man and a woman. That's the argument.

marriage legal definition of marriage. marriage synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

I'd point and laugh at you too, but I'm not a five year old trapped in an adult's body. ;)

nice back pedal but this statement is another lie, the poster you called wrong and said he didnt post facts most certainly talked about kids and intercourse, MY DIRECT QUESTIONS, were also about them and you told me i was wrong also. LMAO

How did i know youd just be even more dishonest LOL

if you need proof of your dishonest where you called these things untrue and only opinion and theres no proof of them please read posts 382, 386-395, 399,400,403, 404 again :)

sorry you lose and you lose big time you were 100% wrong, wipe the egg off your face and let us know when you have any facts to back up your false claim :laughat:
 
Last edited:
That's funny,I thought you said you were a mathematician,are you a license psychiatrist also?
While you are certainly entitled to your opinion,it doesn't necessarily mean it is correct,or that others have to accept it.

Logic and statistics are commonly applied in all sciences, exact or inexact. The natural attraction to the opposite sex is seen in the numbers and explained logically as the instinct to procreate.

You mean the same argument used by those that opposed interracial marriage?

As you can infer from my argument, I support interracial marriage since Kim Kardashian is pregnant with Kanye West's kid.
 
Logic and statistics are commonly applied in all sciences, exact or inexact. The natural attraction to the opposite sex is seen in the numbers and explained logically as the instinct to procreate.
May I point out that logic and statistics can be used wrongly,or for nefarious purposes.
Logic once dictated that the Sun revolved around the Earth.
And may I also point out that marriage is not actually necessary to procreate.
You are still insinuating that those who cannot procreate are inherently "unnatural".
No matter how thin you try to slice your balony,it's still balony.


As you can infer from my argument, I support interracial marriage since Kim Kardashian is pregnant with Kanye West's kid.
Yet you are still using the arguments used to opposed interracial marriages and applying to homosexual marriages.
I can also infer that while you SAY that you support interracial marriage,you can also be lying through your teeth.
 
May I point out that logic and statistics can be used wrongly,or for nefarious purposes.
Logic once dictated that the Sun revolved around the Earth.
And may I also point out that marriage is not actually necessary to procreate.
You are still insinuating that those who cannot procreate are inherently "unnatural".
No matter how thin you try to slice your balony,it's still balony.

Inability of same sex reproduction is a medical fact, not simply a hypothesis with some supporting arguments like your sun revolving Earth example.

Yet you are still using the arguments used to opposed interracial marriages and applying to homosexual marriages.
I can also infer that while you SAY that you support interracial marriage,you can also be lying through your teeth.

Are you seriously going to stoop so low as to try to call me a liar when I state what I believe and have not contradicted such? Heck, in college I studied Japanese language, partly because I was attracted to Japanese women. Read my posts again about who was meant to screw and ask yourself whether it contradicts interracial couples. Now you are getting as illogical as a liberal.
 
Did you miss the post where I stated that Human Laws are not Immutable like the Laws of Physics.They can be changed.
I missed where you said that, but what you are saying is nothing new. Let's just not argue as if the laws have already been changed, shall we?
 
Can you provide a legal definition of marriage that delineates this (the bold)? It says it is between a man and woman, but it doesn't say that "gender is the primary reason for marriage." :confused:
You actually have a point. It says marriage is between a man and a woman; not between a man and a man, or between a pedophile and a condom wearing teenager, or even between two lesbians and their sheep dog. It says between a man and a woman. So marriage between a man and a woman is not even the primary reason; it's the ONLY reason for marriage. Thank you for helping to clarify this argument, Neomalthusian.

marriage legal definition of marriage. marriage synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.
 
Inability of same sex reproduction is a medical fact, not simply a hypothesis with some supporting arguments like your sun revolving Earth example.
And what does that have to do with getting married and raising children?
Adoption,surrogate mothers,invitro-fertilization are options that are now available.

Are you seriously going to stoop so low as to try to call me a liar when I state what I believe and have not contradicted such? Heck, in college I studied Japanese language, partly because I was attracted to Japanese women. Read my posts again about who was meant to screw and ask yourself whether it contradicts interracial couples. Now you are getting as illogical as a liberal.

Don't get mad at me just because I provided evidence that you are using the same arguments against gay marriages as those that oppose interracial marriages.

If you do not want to be mistaken for a duck may I suggest you stop wearing that duck costume.
If you don't want to be mistaken for a bigot than stop using a bigot's argument.
It's as simple as that.
 
You actually have a point. It says marriage is between a man and a woman; not between a man and a man, or between a pedophile and a condom wearing teenager, or even between two lesbians and their sheep dog. It says between a man and a woman. So marriage between a man and a woman is not even the primary reason; it's the ONLY reason for marriage. Thank you for helping to clarify this argument, Neomalthusian.

marriage legal definition of marriage. marriage synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

Is there a law somewhere that forbids the changing of a dictionary definition?
So according to your own post,love between a man and a woman has absolutely nothing to do with it.

And may I point out that you are still using arguments that those who oppose that those who opposed interracial marriages have used before to argue against homosexual marriages.
 
Is there a law somewhere that forbids the changing of a dictionary definition?
Are you having trouble with the Now? Let's not argue as if the SC has already caved in, shall we?
 
Back
Top Bottom