• 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!

If you oppose same-sex marriage, you are...

If you oppose same-sex marriage, are you...


  • Total voters
    34
Because it did not work well before government got involved. Hmmmm...

The world is a different place today then it was centuries ago. I doubt there were many custody law suits, foreign adoptions and so on back 1805 for example. It seems to me that if thats your argument, then your beef is with modernity.
 
ignorant? - If you're defining this as different than stupid, then I'll say no for this one because I'm not really sure what you mean. Most opponents of same-sex marriage are ignorant in the sense that they've never actually known a gay person though. No, the guy who works in the other department at your office, who you never talk to, doesn't count as a "gay friend."

bigoted? - Usually. They want to deny civil rights to another group of people...and pretty much every argument against same-sex marriage is ultimately rooted in a desire to hurt homosexuals, no matter how much opponents want to cloak it in other rationalizations.

homophobic? - This is the same as bigoted, so yes.

stupid (which differs from ignorant)? - Again, I'm not sure what difference you see between these two terms. But every argument against gay marriage that I've ever heard is stupid. Not just in the sense that I might disagree with their viewpoint, like I would for, say, health care or foreign policy. I'm talking downright, indefensible, illogical stupidity.

unreasonable? - Yes. If there are any reasonable arguments against gay marriage, I have yet to hear them.

unenlightened? - Yup. Same-sex marriage doesn't affect you at all. I don't know of anyone who is trying to make it mandatory.
How many of these do you apply to The Obama?
Hillary? Joe Biden?

BTW -- to lessen your ignorance...

Ignorant:
1. lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: .
2. lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact:
3. uninformed; unaware.
4. due to or showing lack of knowledge or training:

Stupid:
1. lacking ordinary quickness and keenness of mind; dull.
2. characterized by or proceeding from mental dullness;
 
Last edited:
No, they are simply politicians looking to appease those groups.
Oh I see -- when they express their position against same-sex marriage, its different.

Doesnt this mean you need to revise your assessment regarding those that hold an anti-gay marriage position?
 
Oh I see -- when they express their position against same-sex marriage, its different.

Doesnt this mean you need to revise your assessment regarding those that hold an anti-gay marriage position?

Are they promoting things like the FMA?
 
I tend to think of it as unenlightened. It is a fear. People are set in their ways and tend not to be open so much to change. If it was good enough for my mom and dada it must be....
Do you consider The Obama to then be unenlightened?
Hillary? Joe BIden?
 
If a person is against gay-marriage, it not only tells you their stance, but also tells you that they have failed to reason and they have failed to be open-minded. People who oppose gay-marriage are clinging to some misguided belief, whatever it may be, but they are still ignorantly clinging to it.
People like... The Obama?
Hillary? Joe Biden?
 
Pursuant to the example of Miss California, Carrie Prejean...

Raw Story Nailed by racy photos, anti-gay beauty queen says she’s being mocked for ‘faith’
Miss California Lashes Back - CBS News
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...-she-s-being-mocked-faith.html#post1058012834

If you oppose same-sex marriage, are you... (see poll)

Please be sure to explain your response.

None of the above. If you oppose gay marriage you are not necessarily any one thing or another. What you are, is willing to allow the federal government to legislate a moral issue. The question is, where does this road end? If Americans take a moral stand against guns, do we ban guns? If Americans take a moral stand against accumulating more wealth than what you need, do we tax wealth?

We must not vote on issues or morality, but rather on principle. The question with gay marriage is whether or not the Federal Government should have the authority to legislate morality.
 
If you oppose gay marriage you are not necessarily any one thing or another. What you are, is willing to allow the federal government to legislate a moral issue...If Americans take a moral stand against accumulating more wealth than what you need, do we tax wealth?
We have this now -- and, generally speaking, those that oppose bans on same-sex marriage seem to have no problem legislating on THAT moral issue.

On what do those people stand when someone wants to legislate morality that they do NOT like -- such as bans on same-sex marriage?
 
We have this now -- and, generally speaking, those that oppose bans on same-sex marriage seem to have no problem legislating on THAT moral issue.

On what do those people stand when someone wants to legislate morality that they do NOT like -- such as bans on same-sex marriage?

Indeed. We cannot govern this nation democratically. In other words, just because a majority of Americans feel a certain way, doesn't mean the government should have the right to act a certain way. This was meant to be a Constitutional Republic, to protect us both from each other and from our government, but defining the role of the Federal Establishment. And yet, we have abandoned the Constitutional Definitions and have amended away the objective power of the Constitution. We have become a social democracy, in every way, and are suffering the terrible consequences together.
 
Indeed. We cannot govern this nation democratically. In other words, just because a majority of Americans feel a certain way, doesn't mean the government should have the right to act a certain way. This was meant to be a Constitutional Republic, to protect us both from each other and from our government, but defining the role of the Federal Establishment. And yet, we have abandoned the Constitutional Definitions and have amended away the objective power of the Constitution. We have become a social democracy, in every way, and are suffering the terrible consequences together.
I cannot possibly agree more.
 
Stubborn maybe. I don't know, the list could apply to those who are against same-sex marriage, but it doesn't necessarily apply. I don't get the resistance to it. People say it's traditional, but I wonder if they use lye soap, or use horses to get around, or understand that the giving away of the bride by the father was traditional because women were considered property and had to be given away by a male. The father owned the daughter till he gave her to a new man. Do they still accept that as truth? Are women still property? Because "traditional" actually changes, nothing is stagnant nor should it ever be. Stagnation breeds death. In reality "traditional" marriage isn't the same as it used to be, and in many other ancient cultures one man/one woman wasn't always the standard. That developed later, so the "traditional" marriage had to be abandoned to allow for the new stricter one.

In the end most "traditional" arguments are actually born out of religion. As the marriage license is a State recognized and issued contract, religion has nothing to do with it. So long as there is the marriage license, there is no logical argument against same-sex marriage.
 
The world is a different place today then it was centuries ago. I doubt there were many custody law suits, foreign adoptions and so on back 1805 for example. It seems to me that if thats your argument, then your beef is with modernity.

We are not talking century's ago, we are not even talking pre-civil war.

You don't need the government to regulate civil matters in marriage. We don't need the government to regulate marriage at all.

My problem has little or nothing to do with modern society. It has to do with people who think the government needs to solve and run everything.
 
Stubborn maybe. I don't know, the list could apply to those who are against same-sex marriage, but it doesn't necessarily apply. I don't get the resistance to it. People say it's traditional, but I wonder if they use lye soap, or use horses to get around, or understand that the giving away of the bride by the father was traditional because women were considered property and had to be given away by a male. The father owned the daughter till he gave her to a new man. Do they still accept that as truth? Are women still property? Because "traditional" actually changes, nothing is stagnant nor should it ever be. Stagnation breeds death. In reality "traditional" marriage isn't the same as it used to be, and in many other ancient cultures one man/one woman wasn't always the standard. That developed later, so the "traditional" marriage had to be abandoned to allow for the new stricter one.

In the end most "traditional" arguments are actually born out of religion. As the marriage license is a State recognized and issued contract, religion has nothing to do with it. So long as there is the marriage license, there is no logical argument against same-sex marriage.

The marragie licence did not come along until government got into it. It was doing just fine until then.
 
Last edited:
We are not talking century's ago, we are not even talking pre-civil war.

You don't need the government to regulate civil matters in marriage. We don't need the government to regulate marriage at all.

My problem has little or nothing to do with modern society. It has to do with people who think the government needs to solve and run everything.

I totally agree. Man's faith in Government is more troubling to me than Man's faith in Religion. Peace can only be kept through mutual respect, individual liberty, and the protection of our civil rights. When we fail to be guided by these principles, religions and governments move in to acquire power; because, simply put, the People have given up their power by refusing to take responsibility for it.
 
The marragie licence did not come along until government got into it. It was doing just fine until then.

I know the history of the marriage license, thank you. I've argued against it on several occasions. Fact remains though, because the marriage license does exist so long as it exists I see no logical argument against same-sex marriage.
 
Yes. They are against gay marriage right?
Good to see you are consistient. Not many pro-gay marriage people are honest and consistient enough to describe The Obama, et al, as mis-guided, ignorant, closed-minded and unreasonable.

Why do you say "The Obama?"
Just giving The Secular Messiah the respect He is due.
 
I know the history of the marriage license, thank you. I've argued against it on several occasions. Fact remains though, because the marriage license does exist so long as it exists I see no logical argument against same-sex marriage.

So because it exists, this can never be changed?

All the state needs to do is keep a record of who is married to whom and by what church (meaning any marriage institution). Thats it, nothing else is needed from the state. All other civil matters involving marriage can be done in court in case of a divorce etc.
 
Last edited:
So because it exists, this can never be changed?

Did I say that? No. I said so long as it exists, I can see no logical argument against same-sex marriage. This isn't Latin here. It's very clear. So long as the marriage license exists.....I can see no logical argument against same-sex marriage.
 
Did I say that? No. I said so long as it exists, I can see no logical argument against same-sex marriage. This isn't Latin here. It's very clear. So long as the marriage license exists.....I can see no logical argument against same-sex marriage.

That is a lame argument.

PS I was asking you a question. How does that translate into you said it? You are correct, it is not Latin.
 
Last edited:
Good to see you are consistient. Not many pro-gay marriage people are honest and consistient enough to describe The Obama, et al, as mis-guided, ignorant, closed-minded and unreasonable.

I do not think he is misguided, ignorant, closed-minded and unreasonable in general, but he is on the issue of gay marriage. There are many things I agree with him on and some I don't. I know he's pro civil-union, but that's not enough for me.

However, I've been thinking, does it really matter whether the president is for or against gay-marriage? I mean everyone always says "leave it up to the states." I blame the state congressionals.

I honestly know nothing about Hillary's or Biden's views.



Just giving The Secular Messiah the respect He is due.

What makes you think he is a Secular Messiah?



That is a lame argument.

Why don't you come up with one then?
 
Last edited:
I do not think he is misguided, ignorant, closed-minded and unreasonable in general, but he is on the issue of gay marriage.
Fair enough.
Do you grant the same leniency for others who oppose same-sex marriage?

However, I've been thinking, does it really matter whether the president is for or against gay-marriage? I mean everyone always says "leave it up to the states." I blame the state congressionals.
It certainly matters when he is a Republican...

I honestly know nothing about Hillary's or Biden's views.
They all hold the same position.

What makes you think he is a Secular Messiah?
The reaction He garners from His supporters.
 
Last edited:
That is a lame argument.

I think you don't understand what the argument is and that's why you said that. You seem to have trouble comprehending what the simple sentence had said and thus lash out with insult instead of asking for clarification. Which is a lame method to produce debate. And the "lame" there is being very generous.

Contract is a right, individuals have the right to contract. The marriage license is a contract, there's nothing religious about the marriage license. It couples in many other contracts in terms of estate and hospital visitation, insurance, etc. It's well entangled and certain contracts can only be obtained through the marriage contract. Since the marriage license is contract and individual have the right to contract, there is no logical argument I can conceive of to ban same-sex marriage. You infringe upon their right to contract by doing so. So long as the marriage license exists, this is a true statement.

The marriage license doesn't have to exist, the marriage license can be abolished. If you separate out the contracts involved and allow people to separately engage in those contracts, you have decoupled marriage from contract. If you abolish the marriage license, marriage itself returns to the churches and the individual religions can make the rules. There are logical arguments there against same-sex marriage as it is religious practice and there is freedom of religion. But that takes the untangling of the marriage license and its abolition, which is the rightful move to make though the one which no one will make. No matter what side the politicians claim, they would not want to give up the power the govenrment holds over marriage.

So again, so long as the marriage license exists, I can see no logical argument against same-sex marriage.

Anyone with a jr. high understanding of the English language would know what that sentence means. I honestly can not believe I had to explain that.
 
Back
Top Bottom