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

IOW, you want the definition to change, but you don't care about changing it. :laughat:

That's right. Deal with it.
Click to expand...

deal with what? apparently you keep missing/ignoring it when I say I support SSM.
 
OscarB63 said:
IOW, you want the definition to change, but you don't care about changing it. :laughat:



deal with what? apparently you keep missing/ignoring it when I say I support SSM.
Click to expand...

We don't care that you have a problem with it. I don't think I can simplify it any more than that.

Oh...I'm totally being trolled here. I can't believe I fell for that.
 
Cardinal said:
We don't care that you have a problem with it. I don't think I can simplify it any more than that.

Oh...I'm totally being trolled here. I can't believe I fell for that.
Click to expand...

bolded. and there you have it. that's not what you originally claimed. there is a difference between not caring about changing the definition and not caring if people have a problem with that desire.

you do care about changing the definition, you just don't care if people have an issue with it. ;)

and once again.... I don't have a problem with it. I just want people to be honest about it.
 
There is intolerance on both sides. The self righteous "equal rights" activists that pretend and flaunt the pro SSM movement as something similar to the Civil rights movement in the 60's and paint their opposition similar to racists and constantly toss around the labels "bigot, hate filled, intolerant, backwards, etc." are very intolerant and full of self righteous hypocrisy. It's a shame many in the pro-SSM movement don't call them out and instead join them in their rantings.

On the flip side there are those who are intolerant where their basis for not supporting SSM is because they feel that gay sex is disgusting or have a westboro mentality of "God hates gays."
 
OscarB63 said:
you do care about changing the definition, you just don't care if people have an issue with it. ;)
Click to expand...

By Jove I think he's got it!!
 
Cardinal said:
By Jove I think he's got it!!
Click to expand...

oh, I got it from the beginning. I just wanted to see you admit it.

I don't care =/= I don't care if you have a problem with it
 
OscarB63 said:
IOW...they are CHANGING the definition of marriage. If "you" didn't care......there would be no need to change anything.
Click to expand...

Changing? That was from 2009. They have already changed.

I do care about being treated equally by the laws of this country. This country has legal marriage, and many laws that include the word marriage. It is easier and more cost effective to change the definition to allow more people, than to change thousands of laws, legal documents, etc.

That whole path of least resistance thing.
 
wolfsgirl said:
Changing? That was from 2009. They have already changed.

I do care about being treated equally by the laws of this country. This country has legal marriage, and many laws that include the word marriage. It is easier and more cost effective to change the definition to allow more people, than to change thousands of laws, legal documents, etc.

That whole path of least resistance thing.
Click to expand...

IOW, you do care :lamo
 
OscarB63 said:
IOW, you do care :lamo
Click to expand...

I do care about the cost to change every legal, government, business form, law, etc
Think about every form you fill out. There is generally a box for "marital status" ALL of those would have to change.
Every law in every state, and the federal laws that mentioned married would have to be changed.
Every business form that says married/marital status would have to be changed.

I think that the government spends enough money on stupid things. I certainly don't want more stupid things added to the list simply because some can't share a WORD.
Operning marriage to same sex couples wouldn't require changing every law and form that mentions anything to do with marriage.
 
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...

I am concerned about the the change of the definition of marriage.
 
wolfsgirl said:
I do care about the cost to change every legal, government, business form, law, etc
Think about every form you fill out. There is generally a box for "marital status" ALL of those would have to change.
Every law in every state, and the federal laws that mentioned married would have to be changed.
Every business form that says married/marital status would have to be changed.
Click to expand...

COP-OUT....all those forms are already updated and changed on a regular basis anyway. and with the way tech is going these days, the vast majortiy of that stuff is done (or will soon be done) digitally. One of the lamest arguments ever.

Operning marriage to same sex couples wouldn't require changing every law.....
Click to expand...

it would require changing the wording of most of them. any idea how many regulations had to be changed, reprinted, etc when the military got rid of DADT? Didn't see any of you whining about "the cost" then :laughat:
 
OscarB63 said:
COP-OUT....all those forms are already updated and changed on a regular basis anyway. and with the way tech is going these days, the vast majortiy of that stuff is done (or will soon be done) digitally. One of the lamest arguments ever.



it would require changing the wording of most of them. any idea how many regulations had to be changed, reprinted, etc when the military got rid of DADT? Didn't see any of you whining about "the cost" then :laughat:
Click to expand...

What exactly was the cost of removing DADT? I don't believe that I have ever seen a record of that.
 
Navy Pride said:
I am concerned about the the change of the definition of marriage.
Click to expand...

Exactly...the word

Be lest concerned about that because a lot of words change in meaning over time. Be more concerned with ending this discrimination and start working towards our national debt.
 
Navy Pride said:
Because as a Roman Catholic I was taught that marriage is a union between a man ans a woman.
Click to expand...

ok. Why does it matter to you if others believe differently? I understand not wanting your priest performing the ceremony, or even opposing the Catholic church from recognizing gay marriage. Why does it matter to you if the US government recognizes it? Or if I do? Or if some other person does? You believe what you believe, and the Catholic church has it beliefs. And those are valid. But what they US recognizes doesnt change or infringe on that.
 
wolfsgirl said:
What exactly was the cost of removing DADT? I don't believe that I have ever seen a record of that.
Click to expand...

don't know if anyone ever calculated it. but considering the number of copies of the UCMJ and all the regs it references that are out there that had to be ammended....it wasn't cheap.
 
The fact that there are only 2 choices offered as answers to the question does provide us with yet another instance of the all-too-common binary thinking found in many on the right.
 
hallam said:
And you may feel that they are important. I was just stating that kids and promoting stable families were reasons given for keeping marriage between a man and a women and they are reject with arguments from the GRM.
Click to expand...

Have they been? My argument is that promoting stable families is the reason we must support gay marriage.
 
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...

What he said and I would like to add, how many "straight parades" have any of you been to that made you wish the kids had stayed at home.
 
Rocketman said:
What he said and I would like to add, how many "straight parades" have any of you been to that made you wish the kids had stayed at home.
Click to expand...

hey...what's wrong with assless pants and public fellatio?
 
LOL at the people who have redefined "tolerance" to mean "shut up when I try to oppress you."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom