• 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!

Can a person be against Gay Marriage and not be a bigot?

Can a person be anti Gay marriage and not be a bigot?


  • Total voters
    70
I said I was not saying it in a mean way. Did ya miss that part?
 
The state is in the business of protecting our rights, and if they are allowing some to marry and not others, or recognizing some and not others in a legal sense, then the state is being unequal in its distribution or rights and recognitions.
Marriage isn't a right.
 
Partially. But you are missing the point and thinking too narrowly. Ask yourself this: since not all couples who are married procreate, why do two people choose to get married? If you are honest about the answer, you will then understand why the argument you are making (gays can marry...just people of the opposite sex) is illogical.
A fact (premise, etc.) in and of itself isn't "illogical."

What you call my "thinking too narrowly" is you taking that fact and putting it into an argument that you created and ascribe to me.

That brings me back to my question above. Let's see you answer it honestly. If procreation is not a requirement for marriage, why do two people choose to get married?
I don't see how this is relevant, but to answer your question:

There are many potential reasons. Some marry because they're infatuated with the other person, head over heels in love. Some marry because their parents told them too. Some marry because their spouse has tons of money and that person likes the feeling of security. Some people marry because they want to start a family. Some marry for a mixture of some or all of those reasons. Some marry for none of those reasons.
 
Last edited:
A fact (premise, etc.) in and of itself isn't "illogical."

What you call my "thinking too narrowly" is you taking that fact and putting it into an argument that you created and ascribe to me.

I am not "ascribing" an argument to you. I am giving you context about what the argument is about. It is about the sexual orientation of the people who want to marry. NOT the gender. That is why your argument is illogical. It's entire premise is false.


I don't see how this is relevant, but to answer your question:

There are many potential reasons. Some marry because they're infatuated with the other person, head over heels in love. Some marry because their parents told them too. Some marry because their spouse has tons of money and that person likes the feeling of security. Some people marry because they want to start a family. Some marry for a mixture of some or all of those reasons. Some marry for none of those reasons.

And how are any of these reasons impacted by the sexual orientation of the two people involved?
 
Just out of curiosity, where did you hear this information? From chatting with friends of mine who happen to be gay, they seem to want what heterosexual couples want when they involve themselves in a marriage - legal recognition, a family, and validation. All three of these you listed, and there is probably more. What I am curious about is how you somehow arrived at the conclusion that the 'welfare of the family' is a distant third, because i'd say this is incorrect.

I'm a fairly active member of an online debate forum, where people of many points of view bring not only opinion, but links and evidence to substantiate their various arguments. Here are links to a few key threads on the issue. If you like what you see I invite you to sign up and join us:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/48765-ca-do-right-thing-and-overturn-prop-8-a.html

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ia-supreme-court-upholds-proposition-8-a.html

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-el...mericans-voted-against-prop-8-california.html

http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news/39715-calif-gov-we-maybe-undo-prop-8-a.html

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...-up-security-after-anti-prop-8-vandalism.html

Furthermore, what homosexuals want in regards to marriage is what heterosexuals want as well, wouldn't you agree?

"Heterosexuals" don't hold a uniform opinion on the issue for a comparison to be made. Also, there are prominent gays oppose gay 'marriage, so we can see that this is not a gay-vs-straight issue.
 
I'm going to change my stance a little and say no one should be able to get married because we are not monogamous beings. What's the divorce rate in this country again? For heterosexual AND Homosexual marriages?
 
Just out of curiosity, where did you hear this information? From chatting with friends of mine who happen to be gay, they seem to want what heterosexual couples want when they involve themselves in a marriage - legal recognition, a family, and validation. All three of these you listed, and there is probably more. What I am curious about is how you somehow arrived at the conclusion that the 'welfare of the family' is a distant third, because i'd say this is incorrect. Furthermore, what homosexuals want in regards to marriage is what heterosexuals want as well, wouldn't you agree?

Jerry is a staunch Jerrycrat (or Jerrycan if you prefer), don't try and wrap your head around him or it will asplode.


like...WHOA!
 
I'm a fairly active member of an online debate forum, where people of many points of view bring not only opinion, but links and evidence to substantiate their various arguments. Here are links to a few key threads on the issue. If you like what you see I invite you to sign up and join us:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/48765-ca-do-right-thing-and-overturn-prop-8-a.html

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ia-supreme-court-upholds-proposition-8-a.html

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-el...mericans-voted-against-prop-8-california.html

http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news/39715-calif-gov-we-maybe-undo-prop-8-a.html

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...-up-security-after-anti-prop-8-vandalism.html

Thank you for welcoming me a year and half later to the messageboard, Jerry! As a member of this community for as long as those threads have been running, I can tell you without a shadow of doubt that you will find no unbiased, scientific, or psychiatric evidence in them to factually substantiate your claim that homosexuals regard the 'welfare of the family' as a 'distant third'. At the moment, you are probably saying to yourself, "You know, self, Singularity cannot possibly know that! It's almost as if he *gasp* read those threads before!" However, those threads are a bit old and I aint gettin' any younger myself. Therefore, I invite you to stand and deliver. Please, show me specifics in those threads where the homosexual community regards the welfare of the family as a 'distant third'. I'd like - your words - 'links and evidence', of course. Oh, and as always, i'd love to see something based in fact, as I mentioned. Unless your opinion is not based on such a thing?

Oh, and for further reference, you may avoid any future slip ups by reading the 'Join Date' underneath the avatar. It's right above the 'Last Seen' line. You're welcome. :2wave:


"Heterosexuals" don't hold a uniform opinion on the issue for a comparison to be made. Also, there are prominent gays oppose gay 'marriage, so we can see that this is not a gay-vs-straight issue.

Both heterosexuals and homosexuals want pretty much the same things out of marriage, as I said. While it may certainly differ from marriage to marriage, I can think of nothing that one particular group wants that the other does not.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to change my stance a little and say no one should be able to get married because we are not monogamous beings. What's the divorce rate in this country again? For heterosexual AND Homosexual marriages?

Actually, I think both heterosexuals and homosexuals should be REQUIRED to get married. Heterosexuals should be forced to marry because being single means that you are depriving some lucky guy or girl out of a future divorce settlement. Homosexuals should be forced to marry because i'm a little tired of their happy-go-lucky lifestyle.
 
Last edited:
Actually, I think both heterosexuals AND homosexuals should be required to get married. Heterosexuals should be forced to marry because being single means that you are depriving some lucky guy or girl out of a future divorce settlement. Homosexuals should be forced to marry because i'm a little tired of their happy-go-lucky lifestyle.

We should carefully analyze the personality and emotional level of each person, and if they are happy single, force them to get married, and if they aren't, ruin their chances for love.


>:D WE CAN BRING SOCIETY TO IT'S KNEES!


:lol:
 
Thank you for welcoming me a year and half later to the messageboard, Jerry! As a member of this community for as long as those threads have been running, I can tell you without a shadow of doubt that you will find no unbiased, scientific, or psychiatric evidence in them to factually substantiate your claim that homosexuals regard the 'welfare of the family' as a 'distant third'. At the moment, you are probably saying to yourself, "You know, self, Singularity cannot possibly know that! It's almost as if he *gasp* read those threads before!" However, those threads are a bit old and I aint gettin' any younger myself. Therefore, I invite you to stand and deliver. Please, show me specifics in those threads where the homosexual community regards the welfare of the family as a 'distant third'. I'd like - your words - 'links and evidence', of course. Oh, and as always, i'd love to see something based in fact, as I mentioned. Unless your opinion is not based on such a thing?

Oh, and for further reference, you may avoid any future slip ups by reading the 'Join Date' underneath the avatar. It's right above the 'Last Seen' line. You're welcome. :2wave:

Singularity has been successfully trolled :mrgreen:

There were many links to laws, statistical data, gay-marriage leaders calling for an end to "second-class status" Domestic Partnership confers, and smiler, in those discussions. I'm sorry you chose to miss out.
 
Last edited:
Singularity has been successfully trolled :mrgreen:

I played one in WoW, omg! So I know teh trollZorz when I see it!

There were many links to laws, statistical data, gay-marriage leaders calling for an end to "second-class status" Domestic Partnership confers, and smiler, in those discussions. I'm sorry you chose to miss out.

And yet, there was nothing factually specific in any of them about homosexuals regarding 'welfare of the family' as some 'distant third' when it comes to why they wish to get married in the first place - a claim that you made a few pages back. Perhaps you wish to pick something specific out of those threads? After all, i'm assuming you made this claim based on something concrete, like a poll of the homosexual community or something like that? Maybe something scientific?

I'm just trying to figure out where you arrived at this conclusion, because i'd say it's incorrect. And i'd wager that there is nothing of the scientific or polling sort in any of those threads specifically making that claim, either.
 
I played one in WoW, omg! So I know teh trollZorz when I see it!



And yet, there was nothing factually specific in any of them about homosexuals regarding 'welfare of the family' as some 'distant third' when it comes to why they wish to get married in the first place - a claim that you made a few pages back. Perhaps you wish to pick something specific out of those threads? After all, i'm assuming you made this claim based on something concrete, like a poll of the homosexual community or something like that? Maybe something scientific?

I'm just trying to figure out where you arrived at this conclusion, because i'd say it's incorrect. And i'd wager that there is nothing of the scientific or polling sort in any of those threads specifically making that claim, either.

I like how you're trying to impose a frame work on me, that I'm somehow obligated to comply with your narrow requirements :lol:

Petty posturing at it's best :lol:
 
This is an interesting thread. I have a question of my own.

Can a person be for gay marriage and not be out to destroy traditional marriage?
 
This is an interesting thread. I have a question of my own.

Can a person be for gay marriage and not be out to destroy traditional marriage?

In essence, yeah. They want to change the tradition. Destroy it? Well, you gotta knock some walls down to renovate, ya know?
 
This is an interesting thread. I have a question of my own.

Can a person be for gay marriage and not be out to destroy traditional marriage?

If that person believes only those monogamous couples raising children have a right to marry, yes.

In that case, the fact that the monogamous couple raising children happen to be of the same-sex becomes irrelevant.

If the person just doesn't care about what other people are doing, they are reckless and harm "traditional" marriage by diluting the altering it's meaning in the harts and minds of the people.
 
Let me ask you with sincerity: is their orientation fulfilling the roll of marriage as "vital to the survival of mankind" (Skinner-v-OK)?

I would say so, at least to the same extent that the marriage of heterosexuals is vital to our survival. It's tragic, but I think we can all conclude definitively that marriage has proven not to be essential to procreation-- but it is certainly vastly beneficial to the raising of children. It is just as essential to the raising of children of homosexuals as it is the raising of children of heterosexuals.

Can a person be for gay marriage and not be out to destroy traditional marriage?

Yes. Case in point, myself. Concerning the legality of marriage, I have two goals: restore traditional marriage including the emphasis on lifelong commitment and its central focus being on the well-being of the family, and then to allow qualified homosexual couples to participate fully in it.
 
I would say so, at least to the same extent that the marriage of heterosexuals is vital to our survival. It's tragic, but I think we can all conclude definitively that marriage has proven not to be essential to procreation-- but it is certainly vastly beneficial to the raising of children. It is just as essential to the raising of children of homosexuals as it is the raising of children of heterosexuals.



Yes. Case in point, myself. Concerning the legality of marriage, I have two goals: restore traditional marriage including the emphasis on lifelong commitment and its central focus being on the well-being of the family, and then to allow qualified homosexual couples to participate fully in it.


I think that if we opened up to a more caring family, regardless of who gives the caring, we'd find that a traditional family (Mommy and Daddy) isn't necessary for raising kids. There are plenty of different family makeups that yield productive members of society, and plenty of traditional families that turn our wackjobs.
 
I think that if we opened up to a more caring family, regardless of who gives the caring, we'd find that a traditional family (Mommy and Daddy) isn't necessary for raising kids.

All the caring in the world can't replace adequate supervision. And the majority of child abuse and child murder cases are perpetrated by step-parents or live-in partners of the primary caregiver. Separating children from their original caretakers and introducing strangers into their domestic lives is very bad-- and it is traditional marriage that best protects children from this fate.

There are plenty of different family makeups that yield productive members of society, and plenty of traditional families that turn our wackjobs.

I can attest to this. My parents were married until I was twelve, and I am one of the atypical cases in which severe child abuse occurred at the hands of parents. I'll leave it to your own discretion as to whether or not you consider me a wackjob; the State is withholding its own judgment on the matter until I either run out of property or run afoul of the law.

On the other hand, the fact that other family structures do produce numerous success stories doesn't change the fact that being raised in a traditional two-parent home is the single largest factor in predicting a child's welfare and chances of future success as an adult.
 
I like how you're trying to impose a frame work on me, that I'm somehow obligated to comply with your narrow requirements :lol:

Petty posturing at it's best :lol:

I'm not imposing anything on you, and you are certainly not obligated to reply. But I am going to assume from your song-and-dance routine over the last few pages that your belief about homosexuals desiring the welfare of the family as a distant third when it comes to what they seek from marriage is simply an opinion based on no factual evidence whatsoever. A poll, a link from an accredited family psychologist - something specific to show me where you derived this from would be appreciated. You usually link specifics in debates. The fact that you cannot do so in this case is understandably perplexing. It's almost as if you just made it up out of the blue.

In any case, I think we can pretty much amend your statement to read that homosexuals and heterosexuals both desire validation, recognition, and yes, the 'welfare of the family' out of marriage - not as any 'distant third', but as something right up there with every other reason that people get married. While i'm sure it varies from marriage to marriage, it's unfair to label the homosexual community as simply wanting mere validation from a marriage, because there is a whole host of things they desire from it. My friends want to get married and are talking about adopting a child eventually, and I think that's pretty cool. So it seems like 'welfare of the family' is right on up there to me.

Have a good 'un! :2wave:
 
I am not "ascribing" an argument to you. I am giving you context about what the argument is about. It is about the sexual orientation of the people who want to marry. NOT the gender. That is why your argument is illogical. It's entire premise is false.
Again, a false premise doesn't make an argument "illogical." Can you please restate what you think my argument is, and if you're not ascribing that to me, maybe a quote to where I made that argument?

And how are any of these reasons impacted by the sexual orientation of the two people involved?
They don't, but I fail to see the relevance. Are you trying to claim that if the reasons are the same, the state should recognize gay marriage? That makes no sense.
 
Marriage isn't right. We are not monogamous critters by nature. :lol:
We aren't peaceful creatures by nature, either. Should we abolish laws restricting violent activity? ;)
 
All they have to do is present a valid logical reason based upon fact to justify their opposition.

No one opposed to same-sex marriage has done that to date.

Good point - it's always based on feelings.

"I don't feel comfortable"
"I feel it's immoral"
"I don't feel like explaining it to my kiddos"
 
All the caring in the world can't replace adequate supervision.

Sorry, that's what I really meant. Was a proper guardian. Not like "Loving" care.

And the majority of child abuse and child murder cases are perpetrated by step-parents or live-in partners of the primary caregiver. Separating children from their original caretakers and introducing strangers into their domestic lives is very bad-- and it is traditional marriage that best protects children from this fate.

Yeah, we don't need to force it, but we shouldn't look down upon different families...I know some kids I went to school with had a kind of stigma because they came from broken families, some of them showed it more than others, but still you could often tell.

I can attest to this. My parents were married until I was twelve, and I am one of the atypical cases in which severe child abuse occurred at the hands of parents. I'll leave it to your own discretion as to whether or not you consider me a wackjob; the State is withholding its own judgment on the matter until I either run out of property or run afoul of the law.

You? A wackjob? Nawwwww. Hmmm...should we start a Korimyr Legal Fund?

On the other hand, the fact that other family structures do produce numerous success stories doesn't change the fact that being raised in a traditional two-parent home is the single largest factor in predicting a child's welfare and chances of future success as an adult.

Well in a Walgreen's world I wish we could all have happy families and hust worry about getting birthday cards out on time. But frankly, I think we need a little dysfunction in society. Be it in our own homes or the homes of others. I know I was ALWAYS a fan of the Single M.I.F. trying to raise her kid(s)...who just happened to be my friends..."Stacy's Mom" comes to mind...mmmmmmmmm
 
Back
Top Bottom