• 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!

When the issue is gay marriage who are the intolerant ones?

When the issue is gay marriage who are the intolerant one?

  • Total voters
    45
hallam said:
You misinterpreted my statement. Kids, love, and promoting stable families are traditional rationales for making marriage only between a man and a women. Any review of the talking heads or other arguments state that these things are not necessary for marriage. So if they are not necessary for marriage as some (not all GRM people argue), then the only reason to get married is taxes.
Click to expand...

Kids, love and promoting stable families is the primary rationale for SSM. Not sure what retarded talking heads you are listening to, but you might want to find smarter ones.

Credit where it is due though, basing your argument on "talking heads say so" is unique. Really stupid, but original.
 
AreteCourage said:
So you are just concerned about the word "marriage"....


I had a debate/conversation with someone about this...I feel it should be all or nothing with marriage. Either you give the rights and privileges to all married couples or none of them...straight or gay.

Personally, I think the government should have nothing to do with marriage
Click to expand...

Israel has two types of marriage. The government one in which the government is involved and the religious one in which the religious community regulates. I would not be terribly upset if government got out of the marriage business, but it would be difficult since marriage has entrenched itself so deeply in the laws.
 
Navy Pride said:
OK sports fans what do you think, Please explain your choice. Thanks for participating.
Click to expand...

Intolerance = Navy Pride and Peter Grimm, unless they get married to each other to prove us wrong.
 
Fisher said:
Israel has two types of marriage. The government one in which the government is involved and the religious one in which the religious community regulates. I would not be terribly upset if government got out of the marriage business, but it would be difficult since marriage has entrenched itself so deeply in the laws.
Click to expand...

Israel can do what it wants...we need full separation from that country.


I know that wasn't your point, but I'm throwing that out there.

If they would just call every marriage a "civil union" than you would make a lot of people happy who are concerned about a word. Civil unions can replace marriage for all couples and then we can be done with this.
 
AreteCourage said:
Israel can do what it wants...we need full separation from that country.


I know that wasn't your point, but I'm throwing that out there.

If they would just call every marriage a "civil union" than you would make a lot of people happy who are concerned about a word. Civil unions can replace marriage for all couples and then we can be done with this.
Click to expand...

Do you think people who fashion themselves victims of oppression are ever going to be done with it? I don't, not as long as there are Starbuck's liberals to do their bidding.
 
Fisher said:
Do you think people who fashion themselves victims of oppression are ever going to be done with it? I don't, not as long as there are Starbuck's liberals to do their bidding.
Click to expand...

If we stop victimizing them than I believe most would...

Of course you'll have those that won't like any other group. I see this as a civil rights issue. We have a horrible history of discriminating against some group of people because they don't fit in our vanilla perceived society.

We never seem to learn in this country and it is asinine to be honest. This isn't a Liberal or Conservative issue at all to me...this is about doing what is right. We shouldn't restrict rights on those who are different. It doesn't matter what lives they choose to live.

Americans need to learn from our history...discrimination doesn't work and fails every time.
 
AreteCourage said:
If we stop victimizing them than I believe most would...

Of course you'll have those that won't like any other group. I see this as a civil rights issue. We have a horrible history of discriminating against some group of people because they don't fit in our vanilla perceived society.

We never seem to learn in this country and it is asinine to be honest. This isn't a Liberal or Conservative issue at all to me...this is about doing what is right. We shouldn't restrict rights on those who are different. It doesn't matter what lives they choose to live.

Americans need to learn from our history...discrimination doesn't work and fails every time.
Click to expand...

Sorry but I don't buy not getting married is some huge oppression comparable to what blacks went through by any stretch of the imagination. If they were like "Hey, stop stringing us up to fences and stoning us to death" then I'd be all for them. To me I take SSM as a human rights violation with all the seriousness as I would left-handed people complaining about right-handed scissors. I just don't care that much one way or the other.

As for our history, that is just human nature. You are never going to change it. You have a lot of the same people arguing about Gay Freedom wanting to drive religion and the religious off the face of this earth. I wouldn't be too holier than thou about freedom and rights if I were trying to destroy those who disagree with me.
 
Fisher said:
Sorry but I don't buy not getting married is some huge oppression comparable to what blacks went through by any stretch of the imagination. If they were like "Hey, stop stringing us up to fences and stoning us to death" then I'd be all for them. To me I take SSM as a human rights violation with all the seriousness as I would left-handed people complaining about right-handed scissors. I just don't care that much one way or the other.

As for our history, that is just human nature. You are never going to change it. You have a lot of the same people arguing about Gay Freedom wanting to drive religion and the religious off the face of this earth. I wouldn't be too holier than thou about freedom and rights if I were trying to destroy those who disagree with me.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying the plight of black people is comparable to what is happening now. It isn't even close...

I am saying that denying gays the rights that straight couples get is discrimination and shouldn't be accepted. That is why I take an all or nothing approach to this. You either change the word "marriage" to "Civil Unions" so you can appease those with vocabulary issues, or you get government out completely which as you already stated is difficult.

I think this issue is a smokescreen to be honest and we should deal with it quickly. We have other more important issues to deal with like a certain 16 Trillion Dollar deficit.

As far as religion goes...it should be out of our politics and confined to the churches and their private doings.
 
Fisher said:
Sorry but I don't buy not getting married is some huge oppression comparable to what blacks went through by any stretch of the imagination. If they were like "Hey, stop stringing us up to fences and stoning us to death" then I'd be all for them. To me I take SSM as a human rights violation with all the seriousness as I would left-handed people complaining about right-handed scissors. I just don't care that much one way or the other.

As for our history, that is just human nature. You are never going to change it. You have a lot of the same people arguing about Gay Freedom wanting to drive religion and the religious off the face of this earth. I wouldn't be too holier than thou about freedom and rights if I were trying to destroy those who disagree with me.
Click to expand...

It doesn't have to descend into wanton butchery to be discrimination.
 
Navy Pride said:
Very weak my left wing friend...Please address the full sentence.
Click to expand...

Okay, let me spell it out: nobody in the pro-gay-marriage camp cares about the changing of the definition of marriage. Every time someone makes that argument we just skim past it or roll our eyes.

Nobody cares.
 
Cardinal said:
Okay, let me spell it out: nobody in the pro-gay-marriage camp cares about the changing of the definition of marriage. Every time someone makes that argument we just skim past it or roll our eyes.

Nobody cares.
Click to expand...

from dictionary.com

mar·riage
/ˈmarij/Noun
1.The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.
Click to expand...

or from West's Encyclopedia of American Law:

The legal status, condition, or relationship that results from a contract by which one man and one woman, who have the capacity to enter into such an agreement, mutually promise to live together in the relationship of Husband and Wife in law for life, or until the legal termination of the relationship.
Click to expand...

you were saying? :laughat:
 
OscarB63 said:
from dictionary.com



or from West's Encyclopedia of American Law:



you were saying? :laughat:
Click to expand...

Right, and we don't care. Because definitions change.

Look, you know how certain arguments just don't have any appeal to the other side? I'll give you a textbook case example: in the abortion debate the pro-choice side will often make the case that if abortions are illegal, women will be forced to get illegal abortions! What they don't understand is that such an argument has no appeal to a position that believes abortions are equivalent to murder. Get what I'm saying?

The argument that we're trying to change the definition of marriage has equal impact: zero. Every time you or anyone else makes that argument, you're doing it solely for the benefit of each other. As I said, we just skim past it or roll our eyes.
 
I really could not answer this poll, because not all straight people are stupid.
 
OscarB63 said:
you were saying? :laughat:
Click to expand...

Why didn't you show the FULL definition?
mar·riage [mar-ij] Show IPA
noun
1.
a.
the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. Antonyms: separation.
b.
a similar institution involving partners of the same gender:
Click to expand...
Marriage | Define Marriage at Dictionary.com

Or the Black's law dictionary 9th edition definition:
"The legal union of a couple as spouses."

Or Websters
a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
Click to expand...
Marriage - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
 
mr4anarchy said:
Based on your other posts and threads, I'd say you and people who think like you. In my opinion.

I don't know if you're gay or straight, but sexual orientation is a hard wired personality trait, while intolerance is a learned behavior. My point is there is no link between prejudices/intolerance and sexual orientation, so your poll is kind of dumb, in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Not to get off the subject too much but that's not exactly true. Neuroscience has shown that there is some xenophobia hardwired into the brain - some have it, some don't.
 
Cardinal said:
Right, and we don't care. Because definitions change.

Look, you know how certain arguments just don't have any appeal to the other side? I'll give you a textbook case example: in the abortion debate the pro-choice side will often make the case that if abortions are illegal, women will be forced to get illegal abortions! What they don't understand is that such an argument has no appeal to a position that believes abortions are equivalent to murder. Get what I'm saying?

The argument that we're trying to change the definition of marriage has equal impact: zero. Every time you or anyone else makes that argument, you're doing it solely for the benefit of each other. As I said, we just skim past it or roll our eyes.
Click to expand...

I call BS. If you didn't care you wouldn't be lobbying so hard to get the right of "marriage". You want the definition changed to eliminate the "one man, one woman" provision. If you didn't care...there would not be an "equal but separate is never equal" arguement.

The whole thing is about "marriage" and what that term means. under the current legal/traditional definition, gays cannot enter into a marraige. supporters of SSM want to change that.
 
Navy Pride said:
Here is what I believe when it comes to gay rights........I believe in equal rights for all Americans that includes gays.....I don't care what gays do when it comes to marriage but I believe the definition of marriage should be a union between a man and a woman and that should not change...Gays can call their union anything else they want to. They already stole the definition of the word gay...That is my opinion but gays and flaming liberals think I have no right to that opinion...They think because I believe as I do that I am a bigot or homophobe. I am not allowed to have my own opinion if it disagrees with theirs...Now I ask you who are the intolerant ones?
Click to expand...
I have no problem with that as long as the government no longer recognizes "marriage" as a legal institution - it should be kept strictly as a religious institution. People can sign civil union contracts when they get married, if they wish, but it shouldn't be required.
 
OscarB63 said:
I call BS. If you didn't care you wouldn't be lobbying so hard to get the right of "marriage". You want the definition changed to eliminate the "one man, one woman" provision. If you didn't care...there would not be an "equal but separate is never equal" arguement.

The whole thing is about "marriage" and what that term means. under the current legal/traditional definition, gays cannot enter into a marraige. supporters of SSM want to change that.
Click to expand...

Here is an article about the changing definition of marriage.
Dictionaries recognize same-sex marriage. - Slate Magazine

But in their latest editions, the dictionaries have begun to switch sides—though until recently, no one seemed to have much noticed. The American Heritage Dictionary, Black's Law Dictionary, the Oxford English Dictionary, and Webster's have all added same-sex unions to their definitions of marriage. * The right-wing Web site WorldNetDaily broke the news in March about Webster's, reporting that the dictionary had "resolved the argument" over gay marriage by applying the ancient term "to same-sex duos."
Click to expand...
 
OscarB63 said:
I call BS. If you didn't care you wouldn't be lobbying so hard to get the right of "marriage". You want the definition changed to eliminate the "one man, one woman" provision. If you didn't care...there would not be an "equal but separate is never equal" arguement.

The whole thing is about "marriage" and what that term means. under the current legal/traditional definition, gays cannot enter into a marraige. supporters of SSM want to change that.
Click to expand...

We don't care...in response to the argument, "you're trying to change the definition!" :scared:

supporters of SSM want to change that.
Click to expand...

That's right. Deal with it.
 
Last edited:
wolfsgirl said:
Why didn't you show the FULL definition?
Click to expand...

because it is irrelevent to the discussion on "change"... a "similar institution" is not "the same" as a marriage. (SSM supporters want to change the definiton to make them one and THE SAME.


Or the Black's law dictionary 9th edition definition:
"The legal union of a couple as spouses."
Click to expand...

and under current laws... "a couple" is defined as one man and one woman" SSM supporters want to change that.

Or Websters

Marriage - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Click to expand...

again... "LIKE THAT of a traditional marriage" =/= a marriage

SSM supporters want to change the definition of marriage.

All that said (and as I've said a zillion times here) I support SSM. Just don't try to BS me and claim that you don't care about the definition of marriage.
 
Cardinal said:
We don't care...in response to the argument, "you're trying to change the definition!" :scared:
Click to expand...

you want the same "rights" as hetero couples and you want your union to be called the same thing, so what then are you trying to change?
 
OscarB63 said:
you want the same "rights" as hetero couples and you want your union to be called the same thing, so what then are you trying to change?
Click to expand...

Is that a joke?
 
Navy Pride said:
OK sports fans what do you think, Please explain your choice. Thanks for participating.
Click to expand...
Just because you live in a black/white world doesn't mean that everybody else does. Your polls always lack enough options. At the very least, you should have included "Both" as a poll option, probably "Neither", and "Other" would have been appropriate as well.
 
OscarB63 said:
because it is irrelevent to the discussion on "change"... a "similar institution" is not "the same" as a marriage. (SSM supporters want to change the definiton to make them one and THE SAME.




and under current laws... "a couple" is defined as one man and one woman" SSM supporters want to change that.



again... "LIKE THAT of a traditional marriage" =/= a marriage

SSM supporters want to change the definition of marriage.

All that said (and as I've said a zillion times here) I support SSM. Just don't try to BS me and claim that you don't care about the definition of marriage.
Click to expand...

Legally in several states marriage is any two non related consenting adults.
When DOMA falls, that will be the federal definition too.

Must suck to be on the wrong side of history.
 
Sherman123 said:
It doesn't have to descend into wanton butchery to be discrimination.
Click to expand...

It also takes more than wanton wants to make it discrimination.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom