• 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?


  • Total voters
    113
Oh yeah, and I have linked and quoted stats in this thread on how many gay couples would like to adopt, and how many have their own children. The numbers are not insignificant.
I am aware of this. I know of several gay couples raising children, and doing so quite well.

Why same sex marriage advocates overlook such a potent argument to garner support for their cause is a mystery to me.
 
I am aware of this. I know of several gay couples raising children, and doing so quite well.

Why same sex marriage advocates overlook such a potent argument to garner support for their cause is a mystery to me.

I do not think they do. After all, there was a document for me to link and draw numbers from. I just do not think it is central to our argument.
 
I do not think they do. After all, there was a document for me to link and draw numbers from. I just do not think it is central to our argument.
Your argument is weaker as a consequence.
 
Your argument is weaker as a consequence.

I do not think so. The hardcore "family values" types who it might appeal to the most are the same ones we are least likely to win over.
 
Except you're not finding anyone in this thread who is posting against polygamy, are you? In fact, everyone I've seen who has mentioned it at all said they'd have no problem with it. Are you reading a different thread or just making things up?
So supporting gay marriage also means a person supports polygamy? That would seem your point. Maybe the Stonewalls should be more open about that to support gay marriage then leads to legalizing polygamy.
 
Well, I think that homosexuality is wrong. It goes against the word of God.

And another point: if being homosexual is the way things were meant to be, then we wouldn't all be here because we all know that two men or two women cannot make babies together, so we would extinct.

Now, I have nothing against homosexuals, they are free to do what they want to do, but I still think that it is very wrong.
 
Well, I think that homosexuality is wrong. It goes against the word of God.

And another point: if being homosexual is the way things were meant to be, then we wouldn't all be here because we all know that two men or two women cannot make babies together, so we would extinct.

Now, I have nothing against homosexuals, they are free to do what they want to do, but I still think that it is very wrong.

Indeed. It is very wrong that your god created people who go against his 'word'. And just by way of being born, they are condemned. I agree wholeheartedly that it's wrong. It is wrong of a god to do such a thing. One might even say... sadistic.
 
You are adding extra conditions to gay marriage. I doubt very much that we will need to do this to get enough support in the near future to pass gay marriage.

I'm uncertain why you're calling the 'core purpose' "extra conditions". Confusion perhaps? Procreation is the reason marriage is "vital to the survival of Man" and *the* reason why the state has any interest in marriage at all. If it weren't for raising children, marriage would in every way reflect any other strictly legal contract and there would be no reason for the existence of "marriage". You didn't read Skinner and Loving yet?

***
Gay-marriage is unique in that the couple can not together procreate naturally; which is the expected outcome of marriage. Mixed races can. Polygamists can. Mixed religions can. Yet gays can not. The healthy gay couple is functionally identical to the infertile hetero couple, and no one on 'the right' is defending infertile couples in marriage for you to then point and demand the right extend that same protection.

This is ground the pro-gm folks must address. Even if you personally think this issue is tertiary, it is ground you political opponents see as vital, so you must address it.

You are not trying to win your support. You already have that.

You are trying to win our support. Not only have you been told how to do it, but it's extremely easy. It is the argument which wins most in court. It is the argument which wins the harts of the people who vote in law at the poll. It has worked every time it has been tried that I know of.

Stanch resistance to that argument is highly suspect. Why wouldn't you jump at the chance to secure swift victory?

Hell I've already given you some arguments word for word in the Reverse Debate forums. You have no excuse.
 
Last edited:
I'm uncertain why you're calling the 'core purpose' "extra conditions". Confusion perhaps? Procreation is the reason marriage is "vital to the survival of Man" and *the* reason why the state has any interest in marriage at all. If it weren't for raising children, marriage would in every way reflect any other strictly legal contract and there would be no reason for the existence of "marriage". You didn't read Skinner and Loving yet?

Gay-marriage is unique in that the couple can not together procreate; which is the expected outcome of marriage. This is ground the pro-gm folks must address. Even if you personally think this issue is tertiary, it is ground you political opponents see as vital, so you must address it.

You are not trying to win your support. You already have that.

You are trying to win our support. Not only have you been told how to do it, but it's extremely easy. It is the argument which wins most in court. It is the argument which wins the harts of the people who vote in law at the poll. It has worked every time it has been tried that I know of.

Stanch resistance to that argument is highly suspect. Why wouldn't you jump at the chance to secure swift victory?

Yeah, see, that's not gonna work. I can't argue something I don't agree with even if it will "win over" the opponents.

Arguing that marriage is necessary for procreation and/or that marriage is FOR procreation is just retarded. And I can't argue retarded.

It would just be much simpler for everyone if the government got their filthy paws out of marriage all together and left it up to whatever religious groups want to "marry" people.

Government out. Problem solved. (dear lord that is so true for many issues. I think it's going to be my new tagline)
 
Yeah, see, that's not gonna work. I can't argue something I don't agree with even if it will "win over" the opponents.

Arguing that marriage is necessary for procreation and/or that marriage is FOR procreation is just retarded. And I can't argue retarded.

It would just be much simpler for everyone if the government got their filthy paws out of marriage all together and left it up to whatever religious groups want to "marry" people.

Government out. Problem solved. (dear lord that is so true for many issues. I think it's going to be my new tagline)

You think your post here was more effective then extending a diplomatic hand?

Observe:
Yeah, see, that's not gonna work. I can't argue something I don't agree with even if it will "win over" the opponents.

Then step aside and let someone else do it. No one said you had to speak. If you aren't the right tool for the job, no one will fault you for that, just stay in the tool box.

Arguing that marriage is necessary for procreation and/or that marriage is FOR procreation is just retarded. And I can't argue retarded.

Ahh so families are retarded now. Well if that's how gays feel then I'm going to vote against gay-marriage so as to oppose the social movement which doesn't place families in a very high regard.

It would just be much simpler for everyone if the government got their filthy paws out of marriage all together and left it up to whatever religious groups want to "marry" people.

Government out. Problem solved. (dear lord that is so true for many issues. I think it's going to be my new tagline)

Ahh well there you go: I'm going to vote against gay marriage because the government needs to get their filthy paws out of marriage all together and leave it up to whatever religious groups want to "marry" people.


***
I'm not actually posing those arguments to you, I'm trying to demonstrate how they are not effective in the least.
 
Last edited:
Of course! Only some homophobic freak would say no:(

That's a bit unfair.

Some people are just of a different generation. Not everyone who opposes gay rights has hate in their heart. Some people still see it as a lifestyle choice. They don't hate gays--they just don't know any.

When I first became a foster parent--I was kind of on the fence when I heard about gay couples adopting children. Then I actually met a few gay couples and realized they were some of the most loving and devoted parents I'd ever meet--capable a teaching great love and tolerance to their kids.

Peoples' beliefs are based on life experiences. It's hard to form an opinion on something you don't know or really understand. I don't believe everyone who voted 'Yes' on prop 8 is an ignorant homophobe. The person who went around my city in the middle of the night putting up yellow signs every 100 feet on city streets is a 'total jerk-ass'--as my Republican mom would say.

My dad was a Reagan republican. He never used the word 'fag'. He just said 'funny'. "Those two guys who do your grandmother's hair and decorate her Christmas tree are a little, you know, funny." I know that's not 100% tolerant, but it's not hateful either. That was my experience in CA with semi-open-minded conservative parents.

When gays started having 'commitment ceremonies, my feeling was, 'to each his own, whatever makes you happy.' Then when I became a foster parent and met some gay couples, I became more vocal in supporting gay rights.

But this was all based on life experiences, not deep thought or philosophical meditation on ethics. Over the course of my life, I became more aware of gays and the gay community and learned through experience to see them as people who just want same the happiness as me.

How can I not support that?
 
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.

This is nothing but a foolish silppery slope argument that has not legitimacy or accuracy. You attempt to say that because something can be genetically determined, that there is a value level to those things. Are blue-eyed people better than brown-eyed people? Your presentation above is completely fallacious and has no validity whatsoever.

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.

Sure it is legitimate debate, but not one you can win. Your supposition, again, is completely inaccurate. You are using "gayness" as an example of a genetic quality. That is erroneous. It is sexuality as a whole that may have a genetic quality.

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.

It is known that heterosexuals can only handle romance, marriage and sex with those of the opposite sex from them. I guess they can't handle diversity...or is it a case of self-loathing. See how ridiculous your argument is?

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.

And you have substantiation for any of this? I would love to see it.

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.

Let's see some causational studies that show this connection. I've done a lot of research on this and all I see are correlational results that can be explained by societies view of gays. Interesting to note, also, is that there is a far higher rate of depression/suicidality for heteros who are single. Hence, legalizing GM would reduce the depression/sucidality in gays.

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.

Remember to use the word "differences" not "better than". No one is saying that except you.
 
celticlord gets it. Jerry gets it. I get it. This is about winning support to get this passed. A family values position makes the pro-GM position seem less radical and more mainstream. Also, marriage is very, very often a conduit towards starting a family, something everyone on any side of this issue can understand and most can stand behind. In order to win on this issue, folks that do not care about gays or their issues must be convinced. Discrimination won't cut it. Many of the people that would oppose this have never been discriminated against. But they have been part of families. This needs to be directed at a point that everyone comprehends and can relate to. Family is it. It is a bulletproof argument.
 
Then step aside and let someone else do it. No one said you had to speak. If you aren't the right tool for the job, no one will fault you for that, just stay in the tool box.
No can do.


Ahh so families are retarded now. Well if that's how gays feel then I'm going to vote against gay-marriage so as to oppose the social movement which doesn't place families in a very high regard.
Weird how that wasn't what I said at all.

If that was someone's argument, I guess I'd have to assume that they're too ignorant to understand what they read, and therefore their opinion is irrelevant anyway.

Ahh well there you go: I'm going to vote against gay marriage because the government needs to get their filthy paws out of marriage all together and leave it up to whatever religious groups want to "marry" people.
That doesn't even make any sense as a rebuttal.


I'm not actually posing those arguments to you, I'm trying to demonstrate how they are not effective in the least.
Arguing something I don't agree with is not effective either.
 
Yeah, see, that's not gonna work. I can't argue something I don't agree with even if it will "win over" the opponents.

Arguing that marriage is necessary for procreation and/or that marriage is FOR procreation is just retarded. And I can't argue retarded.

It would just be much simpler for everyone if the government got their filthy paws out of marriage all together and left it up to whatever religious groups want to "marry" people.

Government out. Problem solved. (dear lord that is so true for many issues. I think it's going to be my new tagline)
It would indeed solve the problem. However, you overlook one small detail:

Same sex marriage advocates are not advocating government disengagement from marriage. In fact, by pursuing their cause with the arguments thus far advanced, they are validating government engagement in marriage.

My personal preference is that government stay the hell out of marriage. That view appears to command an even smaller minority than advocacy of same sex marriage.

As a purely strategic consideration, if one wishes to win support for same sex marriage, championing same sex marriage as a way to bolster family units and stable home environments for children is a solid approach; as Redress has pointed out, there are a sizable number of same sex couples who wish to adopt, and who could provide good homes to members of the next generation--something there is a decided scarcity of at the moment. No, same sex couples do not have much procreative potential; they do have parenting potential, and adopting potential, and there are certainly enough children in need of adoption by good parents to give the argument substance.

Tactically, the family unit argument leaves social conservatives with few substantive responses:

  1. Rebut on the basis that same sex couples are unfit as parents.
  2. Withdraw marital regulation from the State's police power, and endorse civil unions to manage the legal aspects while preserving the religious sacrament of marriage.
  3. Endorse same sex marriage.
Option #1 is a guaranteed loser, for the simple reason that the opposite has already been proven to be true: same sex couples are quite capable of being fit parents. Social conservatives would lose credibility, and the debate, and same sex marriage would carry the day.

Option #2 is a compromise that would let everyone declare victory.

Option #3 is basically surrender.

To echo Jerry's question: Why not make a winning argument? Why all the bobbing and weaving to avoid making that winning argument?
 
celticlord gets it. Jerry gets it. I get it. This is about winning support to get this passed. A family values position makes the pro-GM position seem less radical and more mainstream. Also, marriage is very, very often a conduit towards starting a family, something everyone on any side of this issue can understand and most can stand behind. In order to win on this issue, folks that do not care about gays or their issues must be convinced. Discrimination won't cut it. Many of the people that would oppose this have never been discriminated against. But they have been part of families. This needs to be directed at a point that everyone comprehends and can relate to. Family is it. It is a bulletproof argument.

Soo... basically compromise what you actually believe, argue something you don't believe, lie constantly to everyone about what you believe, pretend to be something you're not and that'll make it all better?

Wrong. Education is best. Truth is best. Not lies, misdirection, and misinformation.
 
Soo... basically compromise what you actually believe, argue something you don't believe, lie constantly to everyone about what you believe, pretend to be something you're not and that'll make it all better?

Wrong. Education is best. Truth is best. Not lies, misdirection, and misinformation.
Where is the lie? Where is the compromise?

Are the majority of same sex couples opposed to having families? Are the majority of same sex couples opposed to being parents?

What is the lie that is being proposed here?
 
Soo... basically compromise what you actually believe, argue something you don't believe, lie constantly to everyone about what you believe, pretend to be something you're not and that'll make it all better?

Wrong. Education is best. Truth is best. Not lies, misdirection, and misinformation.

Please point out anywhere where I said that. The family argument is not only valid, but it is also true and accurate. It neither gives misdirection nor misinformation. If it was any of the things you mentioned, neither would it be able to win on this issue, nor would I be able to win every time I debate from this position. So, I have no idea what you are talking about.
 
Yeah, see, that's not gonna work. I can't argue something I don't agree with even if it will "win over" the opponents.

Arguing that marriage is necessary for procreation and/or that marriage is FOR procreation is just retarded. And I can't argue retarded.

It would just be much simpler for everyone if the government got their filthy paws out of marriage all together and left it up to whatever religious groups want to "marry" people.

Government out. Problem solved. (dear lord that is so true for many issues. I think it's going to be my new tagline)

No one is arguing that marriage is necessary for procreation and/or that marriage is FOR procreation. You need to re-read the position stated. That isn't it.
 
Where is the lie? Where is the compromise?

Are the majority of same sex couples opposed to having families? Are the majority of same sex couples opposed to being parents?

What is the lie that is being proposed here?
How? Seriously, how is it a lie?
It rests on the presumption that marriage is FOR procreation to begin with. Or necessary for procreation in some way. Or even necessary for a family at all.


Please point out anywhere where I said that. The family argument is not only valid, but it is also true and accurate. It neither gives misdirection nor misinformation. If it was any of the things you mentioned, neither would it be able to win on this issue, nor would I be able to win every time I debate from this position. So, I have no idea what you are talking about.
No, it is not valid when one does not agree that marriage is for procreation or necessary for a family to begin with. Arguing that point pretty much states that one agrees with the incorrect assumption that a marriage license is necessary for raising a family, or that marriage is FOR raising a family at all. Thus, arguing that point when one does not believe that would be lying. Arguing that point when one does not believe that, would be perpetuating misinformation and misdirecting from the REAL issues which are personal freedom and discrimination.
 
Last edited:
No, it is not valid when one does not agree that marriage is for procreation or necessary for a family to begin with. Arguing that point pretty much states that one agrees with the incorrect assumption that a marriage license is necessary for raising a family, or that marriage is FOR raising a family at all. Thus, arguing that point when one does not believe that would be lying. Arguing that point when one does not believe that, would be perpetuating misinformation and misdirecting from the REAL issues which are personal freedom and discrimination.

Again, you are assigning arguments to me that I have never made.
 
No one is arguing that marriage is necessary for procreation and/or that marriage is FOR procreation. You need to re-read the position stated. That isn't it.
Yes, you all are if you're using the "it's for the family" argument. If you don't believe that marriage is necessary for raising children, then why would you use the "it's for the children" argument with regard to allowing gay marriage? Doesn't make sense.
 
Think my first try at this post got eaten by the server downage.

I'm uncertain why you're calling the 'core purpose' "extra conditions". Confusion perhaps? Procreation is the reason marriage is "vital to the survival of Man" and *the* reason why the state has any interest in marriage at all. If it weren't for raising children, marriage would in every way reflect any other strictly legal contract and there would be no reason for the existence of "marriage". You didn't read Skinner and Loving yet?

Skinner says that marriage and procreation protected by the 14th amendment. This says nothing of marriage as being strictly for procreation. Loving reaffirms the right of marriage as being protected under the 14th. Again, it does not say that marriage is confined to procreative intent.

***
Gay-marriage is unique in that the couple can not together procreate naturally; which is the expected outcome of marriage. Mixed races can. Polygamists can. Mixed religions can. Yet gays can not. The healthy gay couple is functionally identical to the infertile hetero couple, and no one on 'the right' is defending infertile couples in marriage for you to then point and demand the right extend that same protection.

Not sure I follow the last there. Are you saying no one is defending an infertile couples right to marry, as it seems? I did not know any one was challenging their right to marry.

This is ground the pro-gm folks must address. Even if you personally think this issue is tertiary, it is ground you political opponents see as vital, so you must address it.

The only political opponent I see making a fuss over this is you. it is almost never mentioned in most conversations on gay marriage that I have seen, outside of when you bring it up. Again, I believe that most people will not oppose gay marriage for the reason of procreation, since to tie marriage strictly to procreative intent would create a change in marriage as it is in this country that I doubt people will support.

You are not trying to win your support. You already have that.

You are trying to win our support. Not only have you been told how to do it, but it's extremely easy. It is the argument which wins most in court. It is the argument which wins the harts of the people who vote in law at the poll. It has worked every time it has been tried that I know of.

You are making a false assumption. I am not trying to win any ones support. Hell, I am not even trying to win an argument. I am simply debating a topic. Nothing posted on this board will make a bit of difference in the big picture. What will win gay marriage is gay people going about their lives and waiting for the tide of public opinion to finish going their way. It's an inevitability, and will not be long. Hopefully soon enough for me to go to a certain gay marriage I want to see.

What is going to win the day for gays and their desire to marry is not debate, but being gay and out there, and being seen, more and more, as just people. The younger generations just don't see the issue like us older folks do.

Stanch resistance to that argument is highly suspect. Why wouldn't you jump at the chance to secure swift victory?

Hell I've already given you some arguments word for word in the Reverse Debate forums. You have no excuse.

You are under the mistaken idea that you are the target that I want to sway. You are not. If you have all the information and tactics, you are either swayed, or not going to sway. Arguing with you is just a way to pass the time, to entertain myself, and as a mental exercise. I have learned more in the almost 3 months I have had internet back arguing with people here, looking things up, having things linked back to me.

I do not see our activity here as "winning or losing" a debate. I think this is where CC goes wrong. It's not about winning. Usually, most people walk away from each conversation thinking they got the best of it. It's not a win or lose type thing, it's an express your opinion in the best way you can type thing.

---------------

Thank god for cut and paste, and thinking to do so when I realized the time.
 
Back
Top Bottom