• 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
It would be illogical too call marriage a right....and then issue a license.

That is runs counter to rights, ......which requires no license

a right ...no license

a privilege...a license

its got to be one or the other.
 
Navy Pride said:

Nice try but that was not what prop 8 was about.
Click to expand...

Nice deflection, but it does not change reality. Prop 8 was about removal of government force, that's what it comes down to. Some people don't want government in their personal lives.
 
Navy Pride said:
It will never be legal in the eyes of God.
Click to expand...

It's legal in multiple states in the U.S., and in multiple industrialized countries. So yeah, it's legal.

So how will you define marriage after same sex marriage if it's legalized in all fifty states?
 
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...

Indeed
No vote
Our energies and efforts should be directed elsewhere...this whole homosexual thing is much as a dead horse.
For instance - is it true (as the conservatives it is) that people are afraid to invest their money ??
 
Ikari said:
Nice deflection, but it does not change reality. Prop 8 was about removal of government force, that's what it comes down to. Some people don't want government in their personal lives.
Click to expand...

But gays do its the only way they could ever win.
 
Navy Pride said:
It will never be legal in the eyes of God.
Click to expand...
You cannot be serious, NP.
A god that would allow , over the ages, tens of billions of people to be tortured and murdered.....
He surely gives not a hoot about marriage.
And, that we do NOT have a god running things, is a very good thing..
It could be that the Islamic nations are jealous of us and our freedoms.
 
Navy Pride said:

Sorry that is so much bull****. When different races were allowed to marry it did not change the definition of marriage.l
Click to expand...
That's because you see nothing wrong with interracial marriage. If you felt otherwise I'm sure your opinion of what constituted marriage would change as well.


Or is it that you think no one looks down on you for marrying outside your race? Go take a look at the American Nazi Party and their platform if you want a good, modern example. I won't reference their site (since that would be against policy on this board - and I don't like the Nazi's, anyway) but if you actually need the reference it's not hard to miss if you Google it. They're not the only ones that believe in racial purity. Weren't Vietnamese children shunned for having foreign fathers? And, at least at one time, the Japanese weren't too fond of mixes, either. Lots and lots of examples both modern day and historically.
 
Last edited:
I don't understand the point of this poll. Your sexual orientation holds no bearing over your stance on same sex marriage.
 
Silverwolf said:
I don't understand the point of this poll. Your sexual orientation holds no bearing over your stance on same sex marriage.
Click to expand...
I can certainly agree with that - I took the poll to mean those in favor of.

I'm straight but I agree with same sex marriage. What couples do in that area is none of my business but they sure shouldn't be legally excluded just because they're the same sex.
 
MoSurveyor said:
And without a will the estate went to the eldest son or spouse, depending on the time and place in history. There has always been a default position for unexpected death where there was no will.


The legal system, itself, made it a civil rights issue when the laws started giving privilege to married couples, which should have never happened. Alas, we were once ruled by Christian Morality instead of rational law. At least we started off by declaring the 1st Commandment to be unconstitutional. :)
Click to expand...

I actually had to look up the first commandment as I couldn't remember what it was. There are a lot of other commandments that we do not for others to abide by. About the only two is that thou shalt not commit murder and thou shalt not bear false witness seem to be the only two that we still enforce.
 
Silverwolf said:
I don't understand the point of this poll..
Click to expand...

The point of the poll is for a person who has devoted literally thousands of postings bashing gay people and who thinks about gay sex constantly to try to gain support for the sort of inversion of reality where anybody who rejects such homophobia is somehow the intolerant one.

It's kinda like saying the KKK is a victim of people of color.
 
Navy Pride said:
Congratulations on your great family so you can see there is very little connection with interracial and SSM. Interracial marriage is not changing the definition of marriage like SSM would.
Click to expand...

Yeah, regardless of race, marriage is still between an man and a woman or as Webster put it, a husband and wife. No change in that definition. Actually polygamy wouldn't really change it either as the difference would be a man and women or a man and many wives or woman and many men etc. It would be still of opposite sexs.

I think the debate is healthy and as I said, I have no problem with this being decided at the state level as it is at the state level where marriage regulations and laws are written.
 
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...

So was monogamy back in the day.
 
Navy Pride said:

Sorry that is so much bull****. When different races were allowed to marry it did not change the definition of marriage.l
Click to expand...

It absolutely did. You can keep denying it....but it doesn't make it any less true. Prior to Loving v. Virginia, the definition of marriage in most all states was between a man/woman of the same race. Loving forced a change in that definition. Sorry, Navy....yet again you are just dead wrong.
 
Navy Pride said:
OK sports fans what do you think, Please explain your choice. Thanks for participating.
Click to expand...

Those that want to ban heterosexual marriage are pretty darn intolerant!
 
Perotista said:
I actually had to look up the first commandment as I couldn't remember what it was. There are a lot of other commandments that we do not for others to abide by. About the only two is that thou shalt not commit murder and thou shalt not bear false witness seem to be the only two that we still enforce.
Click to expand...
- You missed stealing.
- Though most state laws against Sunday business activities are now gone it hasn't been that long (I still remember them) and a ton of businesses are closed on Sunday.
- Public swearing is still verbotin (to some extent, though it usually doesn't involve God) but in most places it's a social taboo to swear in God's name.
- Cheating, while not illegal, is grounds for divorce.
- Parents are still responsible for their children (we won't get into modern abuses) and, yes, parents expect their children's obedience. I seem to remember some states have laws (or used to have) that touch on this as well, but I don't know if they're still on the books.


Christians broke the graven images law the minute they started using the Cross with Jesus on it. I would think the cross itself would be OK, as is the Fish. Both are symbols, not depictions.

I always thought #10 (coveting) was virtually impossible. I think they threw that one in there as a catch all so they wouldn't miss anyone. ;)
 
Last edited:
Yeah, now looking back at the kinds of posts the person who started this thread has written, I can see what you mean. It’s interesting though, that he worded it that way. I wonder if he really believes that only gays support the legalization of same sex marriage. That kind of thinking is like saying that only African Americans disapproved of the Jim Crow laws.
 
Silverwolf said:
Yeah, now looking back at the kinds of posts the person who started this thread has written, I can see what you mean. It’s interesting though, that he worded it that way. I wonder if he really believes that only gays support the legalization of same sex marriage. That kind of thinking is like saying that only African Americans disapproved of the Jim Crow laws.
Click to expand...
He's old. I'm well over 50 and even I consider him old. It's a good look into how pre-Boomers talk/think, though. My oldest sister is close to his age so I have a little more insight, there. Compared to how my daughter talks/thinks it's almost a different vocabulary. ;)
 
Perotista said:
So this really has nothing to do with inter-racial marriages. Since it is the United States basically leading the way with gay marriages I wouldn't say were are that socially backward of other industrialized nations. Wills can take care of inheritance, they always have. Tax time, ah, benefits. I always find it strange these discussions always lead to benefits instead of love. If it weren't for Wilson and the income tax, FDR and SS, and on and on, we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we?
Click to expand...

The US is not leading the way on SSM.
There is The Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland, Argentina, Mexico, and I believe Uruguay. England is voting on it now, as is France. We are hardly "leading the way".
 
Perotista said:
Yeah, regardless of race, marriage is still between an man and a woman or as Webster put it, a husband and wife. No change in that definition. Actually polygamy wouldn't really change it either as the difference would be a man and women or a man and many wives or woman and many men etc. It would be still of opposite sexs.

I think the debate is healthy and as I said, I have no problem with this being decided at the state level as it is at the state level where marriage regulations and laws are written.
Click to expand...
You might want a current dictionary Websters changed the definition in 2003.
Since 2003, Merriam-Webster has printed an "updated" definition of marriage in its dictionaries to include same-sex marriage.
Click to expand...
Dictionary Makes New 'Marriage' Definition - US - CBN News - Christian News 24-7 - CBN.com
 
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...

You're allowed to have your opinion.

Your opinion simply doesn't outweigh constitutional law. And your opinion is free to be criticized
 
Navy Pride said:
As usual you are wrong..........I will give you and example....Prop 8 in Califfornia was approved by the people of the state............Who went to the Government to appeal it? I could go on and on.......
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is you dislike the constitution and the system the founders have established in this country where we ware not a direct democracy, but a representative republic with three bodies of government with checks and balances...with one such check being the court system?
 
disneydude said:
So was monogamy back in the day.
Click to expand...

I think you meant polygamy. Sure there are still countries where polygamy is still legal. My papasan who ran the apartments where I lived on Soi I, Sukumvit had 5 wives. This was as late as 1976. But he did have 5 wives, he didn't have 5 men he was married to. I see nothing wrong with polygamy either. It wouldn't work for me, I have enough problems with the one I got.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom