• 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
Terrible poll options.
 
Ikari said:
The ones who will actually call for the use of force to prevent free exercise of rights and liberties.
Click to expand...

[SUB]I know of no Conservatives that do that....Can you elaborate?[/SUB]
 
Ikari said:
People can have all the differing opinions they want. But the call of government force to prevent exercise of right is an act of intolerance.
Click to expand...



To call for not changing the definition of marriage you call intolerant?
 
Navy Pride said:
To call for not changing the definition of marriage you call intolerant?
Click to expand...

The continued call for the exercise of government force against the individual's right to contract....yes.
 
Navy Pride said:
To call for not changing the definition of marriage you call intolerant?
Click to expand...

You had NO trouble for the definition to change to allow your inter-racial marriage....why was it ok for the definition to change for you and not for others.

You are aware, are you not, that there were a lot of people that didn't want to see the definition of marriage changed to allow for what they considered your "icky and perverted marriage" that soiled the purity of the races.


Were the bigots that fought against inter-racial marriage more or less tolerant than you are today NP?
 
OscarB63 said:
which was my point. new editions and versions of all govt forms, pubs, regs, etc. come out on an almost yearly basis (sometimes more often). which is why arguing that the cost of changing forms to accommodate gay marriage is a factor is ridiculous.

it wasn't an issue then, why should it be now?
Click to expand...

Laws are not rewritten every year. Some agencies use the same forms until there is a major change to those forms. Most businesses do not rewrite their forms every year.
 
OscarB63 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I seriously doubt they destroy and re-issue new copies for every single change. And you're talking about something that covers less than 1% of the population. :roll:


As for the word change thing, personally, I don't care what it's called as long as we get the religious institution out of the law, where it never should have been in the first place. I think it's a huge waste of time and effort to change all the laws, forms, etc, etc, etc, to replace "marriage/married" with "civil union/coupled" or whatever - but it's not the first time the masses have been irrational. If you would feel better checking "civil union" on all the forms instead of "married" I sure don't give a crap. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
wolfsgirl said:
Laws are not rewritten every year. Some agencies use the same forms until there is a major change to those forms. Most businesses do not rewrite their forms every year.
Click to expand...

Most codebooks, however, are published every year because there are almost always changes in the laws. The aren't like forms.
 
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...
I sure don't want my (grand)kids attending a Klan or Nazi Party rally or whatever. I'm willing to bet those are "straight" groups.
 
Perotista said:
I wouldn't put it that way. The intolerant ones are the ones who try to silence one side or the other. The intolerant ones are the ones who try to force their views and beliefs on others. The intolerant ones are the ones are those who do not respect other peoples views that are opposite of them. You do not have to agree with anyone's views, but before changing the definition of marriage which has existed for thousands of years, an open debate about it is needed.
Click to expand...
Thousands of years?!? LOL! I'm pretty sure negro and interracial "marriage" didn't exist a couple of hundred years ago - at least, not in the USA. Obviously, the definition HAS changed and relatively recently, at that.
 
Rocketman said:
I disagree especially when they show up at what has been family type parades for decades
Click to expand...
WOW! Do you only let them watch G-rated shows, too? How about the news? Or is it OK for them to see blood and guts but not guys in dresses? LOL!
 
disneydude said:
You had NO trouble for the definition to change to allow your inter-racial marriage....why was it ok for the definition to change for you and not for others.

You are aware, are you not, that there were a lot of people that didn't want to see the definition of marriage changed to allow for what they considered your "icky and perverted marriage" that soiled the purity of the races.


Were the bigots that fought against inter-racial marriage more or less tolerant than you are today NP?
Click to expand...

When in doubt, go to Webster: Marriage – 1. the state of being married; relation between husband and wife; married life; wedlock; matrimony. 2. the act of marrying; wedding. 3. the rite or form used in marrying.

The thing here is that inter racial marriage did not change the definition of marriage, i.e. relation between husband and wife. Gay marriage would change the definition, at least according to Webster.

I suppose it wouldn’t be a big change, instead of relation between husband and wife, it could say between a couple. But we are indeed talking about changing the definition that has existed for thousands of years. Inter-racial marriage has also existed for thousands of years. Even in Sparta of ancient Greece where homosexual relations was rampart, the soldier would leave his wife, female and have relations with other male soldiers, but would no marry them. Alexander the Great, is another example.
 
MoSurveyor said:
Thousands of years?!? LOL! I'm pretty sure negro and interracial "marriage" didn't exist a couple of hundred years ago - at least, not in the USA. Obviously, the definition HAS changed and relatively recently, at that.
Click to expand...

Not in the south, but elsewhere in the world, it certainly did. Here in the good old USA, mountain men married Indian women all the time. In the southwest, whites and Mexicans married. Jim Bowie was married to a Mexican gal. One of my ancestors married a Chinese woman while he worked on the rail road. Inter-racial marriage is not new to the USA or the world.
 
Perotista said:
When in doubt, go to Webster: Marriage – 1. the state of being married; relation between husband and wife; married life; wedlock; matrimony. 2. the act of marrying; wedding. 3. the rite or form used in marrying.

The thing here is that inter racial marriage did not change the definition of marriage, i.e. relation between husband and wife. Gay marriage would change the definition, at least according to Webster.

I suppose it wouldn’t be a big change, instead of relation between husband and wife, it could say between a couple. But we are indeed talking about changing the definition that has existed for thousands of years. Inter-racial marriage has also existed for thousands of years. Even in Sparta of ancient Greece where homosexual relations was rampart, the soldier would leave his wife, female and have relations with other male soldiers, but would no marry them. Alexander the Great, is another example.
Click to expand...
You think Webster never changes their definitions??? For that you get 3/3! :lamo :lamo :lamo


Webster's takes the most common usages and incorporates them into their work. As people use words differently, Webster changes the definitions. It's all based on common acceptance of meanings, not some written-in-stone dogma.
 
Perotista said:
When in doubt, go to Webster: Marriage – 1. the state of being married; relation between husband and wife; married life; wedlock; matrimony. 2. the act of marrying; wedding. 3. the rite or form used in marrying.

The thing here is that inter racial marriage did not change the definition of marriage, i.e. relation between husband and wife. Gay marriage would change the definition, at least according to Webster.

I suppose it wouldn’t be a big change, instead of relation between husband and wife, it could say between a couple. But we are indeed talking about changing the definition that has existed for thousands of years. Inter-racial marriage has also existed for thousands of years. Even in Sparta of ancient Greece where homosexual relations was rampart, the soldier would leave his wife, female and have relations with other male soldiers, but would no marry them. Alexander the Great, is another example.
Click to expand...

It did not change the definition that you posted....but it absolutely changed the definition of "marriage" by the laws on the books at the time that Loving v. Virginia was decided by the SCOTUS. Sorry...that is just the facts.

As far a "thousands of years"...errrrrrrrrr....wrong again. What constitutes a "marriage" has changed countless times over the course of history. Nice try though.
 
Perotista said:
Not in the south, but elsewhere in the world, it certainly did. Here in the good old USA, mountain men married Indian women all the time. In the southwest, whites and Mexicans married. Jim Bowie was married to a Mexican gal. One of my ancestors married a Chinese woman while he worked on the rail road. Inter-racial marriage is not new to the USA or the world.
Click to expand...
I can see Mexicans - after all, the Catholics have ruled down there forever. But my guess is not all those "marriages" were performed in churches or recognized by any form of government, which is what we're talking about.


But, hey, you're welcomed to link to the documentation that proves your case. I'll read anything that's reasonably acceptable.
 
Dapper Andy said:
Isn't it liberals who support gay marriage who push inequality in the end though?

I think if you were to poll modern Republicans they would say unanimously that tax rates, inheritance laws, etc. should all be applied equally regardless of income, occupation, gender, race, etc. It seems to me that it's mostly the people who fall into the pro-gay marriage camp who want different standards for different people but want to make sure they're in the group getting the better standard.
Click to expand...

can you give an example of this asssertion?
 
MoSurveyor said:
You think Webster never changes their definitions??? For that you get 3/3! :lamo :lamo :lamo


Webster's takes the most common usages and incorporates them into their work. As people use words differently, Webster changes the definitions. It's all based on common acceptance of meanings, not some written-in-stone dogma.
Click to expand...

Enjoy. I am sure once the U.S. makes gay marriage legal Webster will change their definition. But gay marriage is wholly new territory. We are talking about changing something that has remained constant for thousands of years.
 
I'm kind of disappointed that anyone even answered this poll which turns two diverse categories of people into some vague monolithic groups of tolerance or intolerance.
 
disneydude said:
It did not change the definition that you posted....but it absolutely changed the definition of "marriage" by the laws on the books at the time that Loving v. Virginia was decided by the SCOTUS. Sorry...that is just the facts.

As far a "thousands of years"...errrrrrrrrr....wrong again. What constitutes a "marriage" has changed countless times over the course of history. Nice try though.
Click to expand...



I am sure it did, but can you name another country through the two to three thousands years of history that gay marriages were legal? I can name dozens where inter-racial marriages were recognized. This is a whole brand new ball park.
 
Perotista said:
I am sure it did, but can you name another country through the two to three thousands years of history that gay marriages were legal? I can name dozens where inter-racial marriages were recognized. This is a whole brand new ball park.
Click to expand...

Nope, still the Same ball park, and you're playing on the KKK team, you're in the year after the civil war ended, saying that 10 years ago, no religion endorsed interracial marriage, therefore it's immoral for every religion because a few churches say so.
 
MoSurveyor said:
I can see Mexicans - after all, the Catholics have ruled down there forever. But my guess is not all those "marriages" were performed in churches or recognized by any form of government, which is what we're talking about.


But, hey, you're welcomed to link to the documentation that proves your case. I'll read anything that's reasonably acceptable.
Click to expand...

Oh I am sure a lot of those marriages were the common law type. Recognized by most states. Here is a list of states and the year in which common law marriages ceased to be recognized:

Common-law marriages can no longer be contracted in the following states, as of the dates given: Alaska (1917), Arizona (1913), California (1895), Florida (1968), Georgia (1997), Hawaii (1920), Idaho (1996), Illinois (1905), Indiana (1958), Kentucky (1852), Maine (1652, when it became part of Massachusetts; then a state, 1820), Massachusetts (1646), Michigan (1957), Minnesota (1941), Mississippi (1956), Missouri (1921), Nebraska (1923), Nevada (1943), New Mexico (1860), New Jersey (1939), New York (1933, also 1902–1908), North Dakota (1890), Ohio (1991), Oklahoma (Nov. 2010), Pennsylvania (2005), South Dakota (1959), and Wisconsin (1917).

As for the rest of the world, French-Vietnamese marriages were very common, Alexander the Great had wives from Babylonia to Afghanistan to India. Since he was the government in the areas he conquered, I am sure he recognized his own marriages.
 
Ikari said:
The continued call for the exercise of government force against the individual's right to contract....yes.
Click to expand...

I did not even mention the Government............Its you Gays that always go to the activist judicial....I wish you would let the people decide.....:confused:
 
Perotista said:
I am sure it did, but can you name another country through the two to three thousands years of history that gay marriages were legal? I can name dozens where inter-racial marriages were recognized. This is a whole brand new ball park.
Click to expand...


DD has a one track mind, he always uses the example of race but in all actuality its people of the opposite sex that marry.
 
Navy Pride said:
I did not even mention the Government............Its you Gays that always go to the activist judicial....I wish you would let the people decide.....:confused:
Click to expand...

But it's through the government you wish to obtain your restrictions. So no matter what delusions you exist under, you should understand that you are the one looking to use government force to alter the natural state.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom