• 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

Goobieman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Last edited:
I'm gonna go with 'normal' as my response. I'm a traditionalist who believes in the sanctity of marriage and of family. I'm sure to be beaten over the head by the hordes of people who can't possibly understand traditional beliefs, but so be it.
 
There are many reasons that one could have for opposing same-sex marriage. It is entirely possible that such a person is a bigot or ignorant, but knowing a person's stance on gay marriage doesn't tell you anything other than their stance on gay marriage.
 
I pretty much see it the way P/N does.

This does not mean I don't want homosexuals and lesbians to have the same protections under the law, or hate someone who is gay in any way.

I have no problem with civil unions, but as I have said before I do not see it as a marriage.
 
I'm sure to be beaten over the head by the hordes of people who can't possibly understand traditional beliefs, but so be it.

:roll:

It's not that we/they don't understand, it's that we believe that your subjective views shouldn't dictate what is legal / illegal for the rest of us.
 
It's not that we/they don't understand, it's that we believe that your subjective views shouldn't dictate what is legal / illegal for the rest of us.
^^^^^
Noting that this is a subjective view... :mrgreen:
 
I pretty much see it the way P/N does.

This does not mean I don't want homosexuals and lesbians to have the same protections under the law, or hate someone who is gay in any way.

I have no problem with civil unions, but as I have said before I do not see it as a marriage.

Granted you have your beliefs but I do not think the law/state should have beliefs.

And that is my belief;)
 
:roll:

It's not that we/they don't understand, it's that we believe that your subjective views shouldn't dictate what is legal / illegal for the rest of us.
But your subjective views should dictate what is legal/illegal.:roll::roll:
 
I voted "other". My actual vote would have went to "some one with a differing political opinion than mine" if that option had been there.
 
But your subjective views should dictate what is legal/illegal.:roll::roll:

First off gay marriage is not illegal. State recognition of it is in some States. Secondly what advantage is there in making State recognition of gay marriage illegal? I do see advantages in the State recognizing gay marriage one of them being marriage encourages stability.
 
I'm gonna go with 'normal' as my response. I'm a traditionalist who believes in the sanctity of marriage and of family. I'm sure to be beaten over the head by the hordes of people who can't possibly understand traditional beliefs, but so be it.

So you're for banning divorce? The notion that gay marriage poses a bigger threat to the 'sanctity' of marriage more than sham/stunt celebrity marriages, the 50% divorce rate and the increasing number of serial marryiers is pretty ludicrous. Deal with that stuff first before even considering the implications of homosexual marriage on the 'sanctity' of marriage. Traditionally, divorce is a very new concept. If we want to go back to traditional beliefs, we'd get rid of divorce. That would do a lot more for preserving the 'sanctity' of marriage then barring gay marriage.

Besides, marriage's value is what you make of it. If you consider the value of marriage at an intrinsic level to be defined by others, then there is no inherent intrinsic value. And why can't gays uphold the 'sanctity' of marriage and have families?
 
I'm gonna go with 'normal' as my response. I'm a traditionalist who believes in the sanctity of marriage and of family. I'm sure to be beaten over the head by the hordes of people who can't possibly understand traditional beliefs, but so be it.

"Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand." - Homer J. Simpson
 
Granted you have your beliefs but I do not think the law/state should have beliefs.

And that is my belief;)

If the people are not the "state" who is?
 
If the people are not the "state" who is?

Gays are a part of the people as well. Should their beliefs dominate? Oh wait they are not fighting for gay marriage only to be recognized by the State:doh
 
Gays are a part of the people as well. Should their beliefs dominate? Oh wait they are not fighting for gay marriage only to be recognized by the State:doh

It should not be recognized by the state as the state has no interest in unions that cannot produce offspring.

If a civil union will give gay couples the same rights benefits etc as a heterosexual married couple, whats the difference?
 
It should not be recognized by the state as the state has no interest in unions that cannot produce offspring.

Let me know when infertile heterosexual couples are barred from State recognition of their marriages and then you might have something.

If a civil union will give gay couples the same rights benefits etc as a heterosexual married couple, whats the difference?

If their is no difference what is your problem?
 
Last edited:
It should not be recognized by the state as the state has no interest in unions that cannot produce offspring.

If a civil union will give gay couples the same rights benefits etc as a heterosexual married couple, whats the difference?

Since when is procreation a requirement for marriage?
 
Let me know when infertile heterosexual couples are barred from State recognition of their marriages and then you might have something.

First I noticed you ignored the real meat of my post, typical really.

As for your question, I would have no problem with that.
 
First I noticed you ignored the real meat of my post, typical really.

As for your question, I would have no problem with that.

What meat? You want to play childish semantics?

BTW I edited my post.
 
Since when is procreation a requirement for marriage?

It's not, but it is the only reason the state really has any interest in marriage at all.
 
First I noticed you ignored the real meat of my post, typical really.

As for your question, I would have no problem with that.

You would have people tested for fertility before they could marry? :shock:
 
It's not, but it is the only reason the state really has any interest in marriage at all.

No it is not. The state also has an interest in encouraging stability as well as the transference of property and a number of other issues.
 
If their is no difference what is your problem?

There is a difference as I pointed out earlier in this thread. I am talking about purely under the law.

Now I ask again...

If you get everything by law in a civil union, what do gay couples have to gain by trying to redefine what marriage is?
 
Back
Top Bottom