• 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!

Would you vote to legal same gender marriages?

Would you vote to legalize same gender marriages?

  • Yes, I would vote to make gay marriage legal

    Votes: 79 69.9%

  • No, I would vote against making gay marriage legal

    Votes: 28 24.8%

  • I am undecided and wouldn't vote

    Votes: 6 5.3%
  • Total voters
    113
Redress said:
You have not proven that legally, strait marriage is about children though Jerry. You are the one who makes that claim.
Click to expand...

What? To you? Pft, read the relevant SOCTUS rulings like Loving and Skinner and catch up. I'm not falling behind just because you're not up to speed. Take Capt'n for example, he's on top of the issue. He's pro-gm and already understands that the winning argument is the "gay-marriage is about the family" argument.

You should read his posts and take some notes.
 
Jerry said:
What? To you? Pft, read the relevant SOCTUS rulings like Loving and Skinner and catch up. I'm not falling behind just because you're not up to speed. Take Capt'n for example, he's on top of the issue. He's pro-gm and already understands that the winning argument is the "gay-marriage is about the family" argument.

You should read his posts and take some notes.
Click to expand...

What is interesting is that Jerry and I come from very different political ideologies and have debated this issue, constantly, for about 3 years now. Through the course of that time, we have borrowed solid points from each of our positions, to create the winning argument in the GM debate. What amazes me is that people are so stuck on the discrimination position, a position that is doomed and has not won in the entire time this has been on the table, that they cannot see that winning on this issue is more important than proving a point...a point that you cannot prove. Almost makes me wonder if many pro-GM people really want this to succeed or if some are just setting it up to fail.
 
Jerry said:
What? To you? Pft, read the relevant SOCTUS rulings like Loving and Skinner and catch up. I'm not falling behind just because you're not up to speed. Take Capt'n for example, he's on top of the issue. He's pro-gm and already understands that the winning argument is the "gay-marriage is about the family" argument.

You should read his posts and take some notes.
Click to expand...

You tried that argument once, and yet could not point out anywhere that it actually said that marriage is specifically for families. Your one quote in fact had nothing to do with marriage being for families.
 
Cephus said:
No, this is a legal argument and people making emotional, religious arguments are just whistling Dixie. Religion has no place in legal matters, we live in a secular society with a secular government and our laws are made on a secular basis.
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with what you say here. I have a problem with you denigrating the religious.

No, there was precidence for white men marrying white women and black men marrying black women. You had to modify that to allow white men to marry black women and in many cases, strike down laws prohibiting same. But we can make the same argument, we already have law allowing two legal adults to marry, we just have to strike down laws that demand what the gender of those legal adults must be.
Click to expand...

No, you miss the boat on this. Your interpretation is too broad, as one MAN, one WOMAN is quite specific. This is why the law could not be modified to allow women to vote. An amendment had to be created. This is why the law couldn't be modified to abolish the slavery of black people. An amendment needed to be created. This is precisely why, from a discrimination standpoint, new law would need to be created...not modifying old law. From a benefits standpoint, modification is far easier.

Because you are contracting an illegal act. Are you telling me you can't tell the difference?
Click to expand...

And to allow it you would have to create new law, not modify old law. Are you telling me that YOU can't tell the difference.

And just because you refuse to acknowledge that your arguments are asinine doesn't mean they're not.
Click to expand...

And yet my argument has easily dumped yours in the garbage, showing that is yours that is asinine.
 
I would vote against any law that seeks to further regulate marriage.

I would vote for a law that removed government from the regulation of marriage entirely.
 
celticlord said:
I would vote against any law that seeks to further regulate marriage.

I would vote for a law that removed government from the regulation of marriage entirely.
Click to expand...

I like to use that argument to toy with people.

"The government shouldn't be in the business of marriage at all, so of course I vote against gay-marriage."

I also like "of course I'm voting 'no', gay-marriage doesn't affect me, so why would I support it?"

I tell the peasants that I'm trolling when I do this just to see their reaction, but the truth is I'm showing that debater how their argument is self-defeating. Some, few, get it and make stronger arguments on facts which stand by themselves. The rest keep a quote of me saying 'I'm a troll' handy when they need an 'easy button' out of a conversation.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
I tell the peasants that I'm trolling when I do this just to see their reaction, but the truth is I'm showing that debater how their argument is self-defeating. Some, few, get it and make stronger arguments on facts which stand by themselves. The rest keep a quote of me saying 'I'm a troll' handy when they need an 'easy button' out of a conversation.
Click to expand...

The problem is you think too highly of your own arguments. Every time you have gotten into the gay marriage debate, your arguments are something of a joke to others. You have not actually ever successfully argued against gay marriage.
 
Redress said:
The problem is you think too highly of your own arguments. Every time you have gotten into the gay marriage debate, your arguments are something of a joke to others. You have not actually ever successfully argued against gay marriage.
Click to expand...

This means you have fallen into Jerry's trap. He doesn't argue against gay marriage.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
This means you have fallen into Jerry's trap. He doesn't argue against gay marriage.
Click to expand...

Nor does he argue for it. Shouldn't he then actually stay out of it, instead of trying to act superior?
 
Redress said:
Nor does he argue for it. Shouldn't he then actually stay out of it, instead of trying to act superior?
Click to expand...

Jerry argues for GM, but from a specific position only. I am pro-GM and argue from a specific standpoint. Though our positions are similar, as you can see in my description, there are subtle nuances.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Jerry argues for GM, but from a specific position only. I am pro-GM and argue from a specific standpoint. Though our positions are similar, as you can see in my description, there are subtle nuances.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't you, if you are going to argue for or against something, actually make your position clear? The only position that is clear is that he wants to change the overall definition of marriage to make it about children, which would be an entirely separate argument.
 
Redress said:
Shouldn't you, if you are going to argue for or against something, actually make your position clear? The only position that is clear is that he wants to change the overall definition of marriage to make it about children, which would be an entirely separate argument.
Click to expand...

I've debated Jerry on this for 3 years, and I do not believe that is his position. If you ask him to clarify, I'm sure he will. I don't want to speak for him.
 
Redress said:
Shouldn't you, if you are going to argue for or against something, actually make your position clear? The only position that is clear is that he wants to change the overall definition of marriage to make it about children, which would be an entirely separate argument.
Click to expand...
Why does that need to be an entirely separate argument?

(Hint: it doesn't)
 
Jerry said:
You're pointing to exceptions which prove the rule as though those exceptions falsify the rule.

Every time you point them out, you loose.
Click to expand...

Yet they don't prove the rule, they prove conclusively that the rule is false. Marriage is not about raising children. Certainly it is one element which marriage can address, but it does not make it the central, unifying rule which all, or even most, marriages exist to serve.

Marriage isn't about raising children any more than it's about having monogamous sex. To claim that it is is utterly ludicrous.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I don't have a problem with what you say here. I have a problem with you denigrating the religious.
Click to expand...

Have all the problems you want. I have problems with the religious trying to force their religious views on a secular society.

No, you miss the boat on this. Your interpretation is too broad, as one MAN, one WOMAN is quite specific. This is why the law could not be modified to allow women to vote. An amendment had to be created. This is why the law couldn't be modified to abolish the slavery of black people. An amendment needed to be created. This is precisely why, from a discrimination standpoint, new law would need to be created...not modifying old law. From a benefits standpoint, modification is far easier.
Click to expand...

It could have been, it simply wasn't. You confuse an event with a requirement. It's entirely possible that they could have simply decided that blacks couldn't be slaves or women could vote, both happened to end up as amendments because they were pushed as such. Certainly we didn't need an amendment when the military was desegregated or women got other rights equal to men, it simply wasn't necessary.

And to allow it you would have to create new law, not modify old law. Are you telling me that YOU can't tell the difference.
Click to expand...

No, but apparently you can't.

And yet my argument has easily dumped yours in the garbage, showing that is yours that is asinine.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you keep on telling yourself that. Might actually get someone to believe it.
 
Cephus said:
Have all the problems you want. I have problems with the religious trying to force their religious views on a secular society.
Click to expand...

Force. When they do that, I will stand with you. But, I wonder if your and my definition of "force" are the same.

It could have been, it simply wasn't. You confuse an event with a requirement. It's entirely possible that they could have simply decided that blacks couldn't be slaves or women could vote, both happened to end up as amendments because they were pushed as such. Certainly we didn't need an amendment when the military was desegregated or women got other rights equal to men, it simply wasn't necessary.
Click to expand...

Because there was precedence in other laws. Using the discrimination tactic worked because of that. And they could not alter those things, originally without an amendment.



No, but apparently you can't.
Click to expand...

Actually, I can, but no matter how much I explain it, you refuse to.

Yeah, you keep on telling yourself that. Might actually get someone to believe it.
Click to expand...

As long as what I'm believing is accurate, which it is, what you believe is your business.
 
Anyone who attaches any relevancy to genetics concerning behavior of people is fundamentally entering the world of bigots and such considerations should be completely disregarded.

All of you claiming people are gay because they are born to be gay then also get off on so-called studies showing that blacks are most physically capable but whites more intellectually capable - for which then blacks should be laborers and whites the management. You put significance on claims that men are better at mathematics and women at linguists. For this you absolutely, completely discredit individuality and put people into various sub set of the human species collectively.

IF gayness is a genetic trait, then it is legitimate to debate whether it is desirable or undesirable, indeed whether it is then a birth defect. There are many reasons then to claim it is a genetic defect that is undesirable - reason then to urge gays not to have children.

It is known that gays are drawn to those similar to them and repelled by those who are different. Gays can only handle romance, marriage and sex with people the same as them. While heterosexuals are drawn to what is opposite. Gays can't handle difference.

This would be consistent with how so many gays in general and on this forum rage and throw tantrums when anyone disagrees with them. It would explain how quickly gays try to put themselves on the persecution cross. It also would explain who so many gays express they are psychologically crushed by parents who don't agree with their being different from them, while parents have been disagreeing with the lifestyle and values of their next generation children for centuries at least and millions of heterosexual youths have been thrown out of the house without seeing their entire lives crushed.

The worst trait of gay "genetics" (for those who accredit it to genetics) is their high suicide rates compared to heterosexuals. Self destructiveness isn't limited only to suicide. It can also mean inability to maintain relationships, unable to work with others in employment, and overall depresssion and instability.

As you "debate" the genetics of gays compared to straights, you should also go ahead and also return to debating the genetic differences between blacks and whites, the genetic differences between men and women, and even the genetic differences between liberals and conservatives.
 
joko104 said:
IF gayness is a genetic trait, then it is legitimate to debate whether it is desirable or undesirable, indeed whether it is then a birth defect. There are many reasons then to claim it is a genetic defect that is undesirable - reason then to urge gays not to have children.
Click to expand...

No, it is not legitimate. There are innumerable genetic traits. Only a few can be posited as genetic defect. "Desirability" alone is a poor criterion for assigning the status of defect to a genetic trait.
 
I suppose I'll eventually have to accept some sort of "civil union" law. I'd prefer it as a contract between private individuals making each other "next of kin", primary heir, power-of-attorney, household-members, ownership-in-common, etc.

I don't want it called "marriage", because it isn't what marriage has been and meant in almost every culture for thousands of years.
 
celticlord said:
Why does that need to be an entirely separate argument?

(Hint: it doesn't)
Click to expand...

It probably does not need to be handled as a different issue, though I think it should be. They are however two entirely different things, and not the same issue at all.

Hint: 2 different things are not the same thing.
 
Goshin said:
I don't want it called "marriage", because it isn't what marriage has been and meant in almost every culture for thousands of years.
Click to expand...

That's a whole heap of things you're trying to call one thing.

The Chinese only outlawed polygamy within a few years of us legalizing interracial marriage. Jealousy used to be grounds for divorce.
 
Redress said:
It probably does not need to be handled as a different issue, though I think it should be. They are however two entirely different things, and not the same issue at all.

Hint: 2 different things are not the same thing.
Click to expand...

Apples and oranges are both fruits.
 
Redress said:
It probably does not need to be handled as a different issue, though I think it should be. They are however two entirely different things, and not the same issue at all.
Click to expand...
Are they?

So there is agreement and conformity on the definition of "marriage"?

You sure about that?
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
That's a whole heap of things you're trying to call one thing.

The Chinese only outlawed polygamy within a few years of us legalizing interracial marriage. Jealousy used to be grounds for divorce.
Click to expand...

To elaborate on what I was saying:

While marriage customs have varied according to period in history and local culture, thoughout history the norm has been "male, female, childen." Sometimes it was polygamous, yes, but still male-female.

Male-male and female-female has never been a marriage norm, to my knowlege. Even those ancient Greek cultures where homosexual behavior between men was commonplace, typically reserved "marriage" as being male-female with procreation in mind. While the Romans may have briefly tolerated same-sex marriages among the "eccentric aristocracy" during a certain period of history, it wasn't even close to being the norm.

Throughout history, marriage has been man-woman-children as the norm, whatever other differences might have existed.

The family is the fundamental unit of stable societies. Changing the definition of "marriage" from that fundamental man-woman-children principle seems inadvisable.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom