• 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!

Should Same Sex People be allowed to Marry

Should Same Sex People be allowed to Marry

  • yes,-- everybody should be treated equal

    Votes: 69 74.2%

  • No--some people should recieve preferential treatment

    Votes: 24 25.8%
  • Total voters
    93
faminedynasty said:
As always, a ridiculous comparison. Same sex marriage is based on the decision of consenting, human adults. And consenting adults can do to one another whatever they both (or all) agree to, no? Only a fascist could possibly think otherwise. Don't you think so?
Click to expand...

Alas, someone being deliberately obtuse and using ad hominem to buttress a patently illogical and silly argument.

The point I was making is pretty clear, and that is: marriage by definition is ONE MAN + ONE WOMAN. Arguing that the definition of marriage also includes ONE MAN + ONE MAN is as absurd as saying that marriage also includes ONE DOG + ONE DOG. In both contexts, you are fundamentally changing the definition of the institution, which defeats the purpose for the institution in the first instance. So why not start recognizing marriages between flowers, rats, dogs and other living things?

The liberal idiocy about "consenting, human adults" is a red herring. Granted it would be fascistic to argue that consenting human adults couldn't engage in any relationship or association they wish; conservatives do not argue this. It is not fascistic, however, to argue that the entire definition of marriage shouldn't be changed because liberals decide to introduce the absurdity of homosexual marriage as a constitutional right.

To argue that believing that marriage between an man and a man is fundamentally flawed is fascistic, is as idiotic as arguing that believing a flat-screen TV should be used as a mattress is fascistic. Gays are free to be gay, and they are free to engage in the most disgusting homosexual relations to their full pleasure. I think it is indescribably immoral, but I think passing laws banning sodomy is a waste of governmental resources and would be very hard to enforce, but to argue that marriage ought to be destroyed in order to include gays is manifestly preposterously, and is the kind of absurdity that can only be promulgated by liberals.
 
Blackdog said:
To bad the OT laws do not apply to modern Gentiles. :roll:

That was Gods laws for the Israelites.
Click to expand...
Ok, then I'm not sure why you brought up this verse from Leviticus, if it doesn't matter to modern Gentiles. Either the laws count and they matter, or they don't matter and you shouldn't use them in an argument. That book is full of the repeated insistence that readers should heed ALL the commandments--so if one is invalid, they all are. You don't get to pick and choose at your leisure, and then roll your eyes at those who find fault with your reasoning.
That is utter hogwash.

A man can NOT have sex for breading with another man. :roll:
Click to expand...
Perhaps you didn't understand, so I'll try again. Bible verses have to be read as they would have been understood in their own time. In this case, the verse refers to the only kind of sex ancient people would have considered--intercourse (there are lots of other kinds of sexual behavior). Also, there were practical reasons for this restriction (which I mentioned) that no longer apply today.

It's strange--in the history of Christianity, no one has taken homosexual behavior so seriously or considered it so horrible as do contemporary American evangelicals. In previous times, same sex relations were placed in the same category as adultery and heterosexual fornication--sins for sure, but nothing approaching the cult of hatred we see in the US today.
 
Back on topic here---If same sex marriages are made legal--they should include everyone, and no particular sub group of individuals.
 
Skateguy said:
Back on topic here---If same sex marriages are made legal--they should include everyone, and no particular sub group of individuals.
Click to expand...

Well, obviously.

For that matter, I don't see how it would be possible to legislate against such, without incredibly invasive "big brother" systems to make sure the same sex persons were screwing each other, or something.

But then what about the heterosexual couples who don’t, for reasons of their own?
 
The Mark said:
Well, obviously.

For that matter, I don't see how it would be possible to legislate against such, without incredibly invasive "big brother" systems to make sure the same sex persons were screwing each other, or something.

But then what about the heterosexual couples who don’t, for reasons of their own?
Click to expand...
Exactly---A couples sexual habits, or lack there of, should not even be on the table. All marriages are not about sex to start with. Some are just business arrangements. and should be legal for everyone.
 
Rassales said:
Ok, then I'm not sure why you brought up this verse from Leviticus, if it doesn't matter to modern Gentiles. Either the laws count and they matter, or they don't matter and you shouldn't use them in an argument.
Click to expand...

It was an example of being able to understand scripture.

Here is what the NT says..

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 :Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals

No problem understanding that either.

Rassales said:
That book is full of the repeated insistence that readers should heed ALL the commandments--so if one is invalid, they all are. You don't get to pick and choose at your leisure, and then roll your eyes at those who find fault with your reasoning.
Click to expand...

You obviously have very little understating of the Bible.

You have not a clue about the different covenants etc.

Rassales said:
Perhaps you didn't understand, so I'll try again. Bible verses have to be read as they would have been understood in their own time. In this case, the verse refers to the only kind of sex ancient people would have considered--intercourse (there are lots of other kinds of sexual behavior). Also, there were practical reasons for this restriction (which I mentioned) that no longer apply today.
Click to expand...

I understand this, and they understood that two men cannot conceive a baby.

You are wrong as I have shown.

Rassales said:
It's strange--in the history of Christianity, no one has taken homosexual behavior so seriously or considered it so horrible as do contemporary American evangelicals.
Click to expand...

This is not true. Judaism, Islam and many other religions condemn the behavior. It has little to do with just Evangelical Christians.

PS I am non-denominational. I am not even a Protestant. :roll:

Rassales said:
In previous times, same sex relations were placed in the same category as adultery and heterosexual fornication--sins for sure, but nothing approaching the cult of hatred we see in the US today.
Click to expand...

:lol::lol:

They were burned and tortured in some cases. You really need to study your history. Yea not wanting gay marraige ranks right up there with gassing homosexuals in Nazi camps. :roll:
 
ADK_Forever said:
Ok, let me get this straight. You're accusing me of bigotry for wanting the same rights for everyone.
Click to expand...

Here we go with more lies. :roll:

No. I am accusing you of bigotry for lumping all religious people into the same group with blanket statements that are not true.

ADK_Forever said:
While you think you are not a bigot, or acting out of fear, for wanting to grant rights to a select group of people because of characteristics they were born with.

Uhhh... ok. :doh
Click to expand...

Please point out where I said I am not a bigot? Everyone has their own bigotry including me. Please point out where I said homosexuals should not have the same rights? I think they should have all the rights of a married couple in a Civil Union, not a marraige.

You are way out of line here.

ADK_Forever said:
You actually think you know what any biblical statements mean? Let's see now, this is a book written several thousands of years ago by scores of men and/or women, interpreted thousands of times, rewritten how many times and all this in a time when "an eye for an eye" was the law of the land and "spare the rod spoil the child" is interpreted as an excuse to beat children?

C'MON MANNNN!
Click to expand...

You really have little understanding of the Bible or it's history. I will say you have a wonderful ability to exaggerate a great deal about things you know very little about.

ADK_Forever said:
I'm not an expert here but, this sounds like a personal attack to me. :roll:
Click to expand...

Because you misunderstood and tried (unsuccessfully) to put words in my mouth.

ADK_Forever said:
And yet another.
Click to expand...

It is true, you lied. It is an ad Hom yes, would it feel better if I called you a fabricator of tall tails?

ADK_Forever said:
Your fear of gays and lesbians is as obvious as your lack of control when confronted with the reasons for your own bigotry.
Click to expand...

:doh :lol:
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
It was an example of being able to understand scripture.

Here is what the NT says..

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 :Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals

No problem understanding that either.
Click to expand...
Yep...problems abound. Remember, the NT wasn't written in English, and the word "homosexual" did not exist in English until about 150 years ago. If you look at the actual word in Greek from that passage, you'll find it means a man who performs sex with other men, in a pagan temple, for the purpose of pagan worship. Not exactly the same as George and Steve, your neighbors down the street, with the cat and the Prius.
You obviously have very little understating of the Bible.

You have not a clue about the different covenants etc.
Click to expand...
I was unaware that different covenants allow people to pick and choose the laws they follow.
I understand this, and they understood that two men cannot conceive a baby.
Click to expand...
Again, you aren't getting it. Some rules have practical backing--they make sense in their own context. In a world where there can never be enough people, where increasing one's population is the key to economic success, it makes sense to channel people's sexuality into procreation. That's hardly the case today.
This is not true. Judaism, Islam and many other religions condemn the behavior. It has little to do with just Evangelical Christians.
Click to expand...
What part of "in the history of Christianity" did you not get?
They were burned and tortured in some cases. You really need to study your history. Yea not wanting gay marraige ranks right up there with gassing homosexuals in Nazi camps. :roll:
Click to expand...
So were fornicators, but not often, and usually for the benefit of some powerful person or group whipping people into a frenzy.

If evangelicals took half the energy they spend condemning the sins of others and used it to concentrate on the sins they themselves are tempted to, they'd make of the world a much more Godly place.

But railing about the sins of others is much more fun.
 
Rassales said:
Yep...problems abound. Remember, the NT wasn't written in English, and the word "homosexual" did not exist in English until about 150 years ago. If you look at the actual word in Greek from that passage, you'll find it means a man who performs sex with other men, in a pagan temple, for the purpose of pagan worship. Not exactly the same as George and Steve, your neighbors down the street, with the cat and the Prius.
Click to expand...

You have got to be kidding???

Rassales said:
I was unaware that different covenants allow people to pick and choose the laws they follow.
Click to expand...

Has nothing to do with my comment. This comment also pretty much sums up your Biblical knowledge.

Rassales said:
Again, you aren't getting it. Some rules have practical backing--they make sense in their own context. In a world where there can never be enough people, where increasing one's population is the key to economic success, it makes sense to channel people's sexuality into procreation. That's hardly the case today.
What part of "in the history of Christianity" did you not get?
So were fornicators, but not often, and usually for the benefit of some powerful person or group whipping people into a frenzy.
Click to expand...

They had prostitutes around correct? Well if that is the case, it pretty much blows your only for breeding scenario clean out of the water.

Rassales said:
If evangelicals took half the energy they spend condemning the sins of others and used it to concentrate on the sins they themselves are tempted to, they'd make of the world a much more Godly place.
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with your ignoring my correct point, or pointing out your hypocrisy, but I can agree with your statement.

Rassales said:
But railing about the sins of others is much more fun.
Click to expand...

Well why don't you cast the first stone?
 
Tsunami said:
I don't see why the government sponsors marriage anyways. If it is indeed a religious institution then the government should have no part in it. If it isn't a religious institution then anyone who wants the legal benefits of marriage should be able to do it without discrimination. Marriage benefits, whether gay or not, are discriminatory to single people.
Click to expand...

From the Constitution, Article 1, section 8;

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


"To establish a uniform rule of naturalization,...."

In as much as defining marriage is necessary to meet the responsibilities listed under Article 1, section 8,.... Congress not only has the right to define marriage,... but it also has the responsibility to do so in keeping with uniformity and respect to the "general welfare" needs of the nation.

Just my 2 centavos! (imigration punn intended)
 
Blackdog said:
You have got to be kidding???
Click to expand...
You thought the New Testament was written in English?


Has nothing to do with my comment. This comment also pretty much sums up your Biblical knowledge.
Click to expand...
I know enough to tell that an ancient text can't be interpreted using language concepts that didn't exist when it was written, and that in order to understand any text, you need to consult the original language, not some word with a 150 year pedigree substituted in for a much more specific concept.

Rather than rail about my ignorance (which is as easy to do for an ignorant person as for a learned one), perhaps you could tell me by what dogma you get to pay close attention to one rule but completely ignore another just half-a-page away.
They had prostitutes around correct? Well if that is the case, it pretty much blows your only for breeding scenario clean out of the water.
Click to expand...
Not sure how that fits here. Was sex with prostitutes considered licit by religious authorities among the ancient Hebrews?
Well why don't you cast the first stone?
Click to expand...
I'll leave that to religious authorities. They're good at it.
 
Last edited:
PHP:
Tsunami said:
I don't see why the government sponsors marriage anyways. If it is indeed a religious institution then the government should have no part in it. If it isn't a religious institution then anyone who wants the legal benefits of marriage should be able to do it without discrimination. Marriage benefits, whether gay or not, are discriminatory to single people.
Click to expand...

Should government support those radical ideas that destroy the fabric of society, are generally against nature, and in fact, if taken to its extreme, mean the extinction of the human race?
Is gay marriage, and societies acceptance of same, OK because it is a small minority of the population? What if a majority of the population were gay? Would it still be responsible for government to support it knowing the ramifications of a dwindling national population?
 
Reality Land said:
PHP:

Should government support those radical ideas that destroy the fabric of society, are generally against nature, and in fact, if taken to its extreme, mean the extinction of the human race?
Click to expand...
You mean like couples getting married who cannot or will not have children?

*GASP* OMG! TEH HORROR!

Please. :roll:

Is gay marriage, and societies acceptance of same, OK because it is a small minority of the population? What if a majority of the population were gay? Would it still be responsible for government to support it knowing the ramifications of a dwindling national population?
Click to expand...
The government isn't "supporting" anything. Allowing same sex marriage simply allows same sex couples to enter into a single legal contract to achieve benefits and privileges that would otherwise require them months, attorney fees, and numerous individual legal contracts to achieve. Allowing same sex couples to enter into a legal contract isn't "supporting" them. It's allowing them the same rights as other couple have.
 
Reality Land said:
Should government support those radical ideas that destroy the fabric of society, are generally against nature, and in fact, if taken to its extreme, mean the extinction of the human race?
Is gay marriage, and societies acceptance of same, OK because it is a small minority of the population? What if a majority of the population were gay? Would it still be responsible for government to support it knowing the ramifications of a dwindling national population?
Click to expand...

As soon as you mentioned "against nature" and "extinction of the human race" I knew you had no clue. The first is an appeal to nature logical fallacy... so you fail, and the second is ridiculous because approximately 4% of the population has been gay since recorded history... and we still exist... so you fail.

So, since you have presented no logical or substantial ramifications, do you want to try again?
 
rivrrat said:
You mean like couples getting married who cannot or will not have children?

*GASP* OMG! TEH HORROR!

Please. :roll:
Click to expand...

At least they have the option of procreating and you are talking about a vast minority. Hardley a good comparison. And not all people should have children based on their IQ. Some genes pools just need to end. :roll

rivrrat said:
The government isn't "supporting" anything. Allowing same sex marriage simply allows same sex couples to enter into a single legal contract to achieve benefits and privileges that would otherwise require them months, attorney fees, and numerous individual legal contracts to achieve. Allowing same sex couples to enter into a legal contract isn't "supporting" them. It's allowing them the same rights as other couple have.
Click to expand...

Well, I guess our definition of support is different then. Nice spin.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
As soon as you mentioned "against nature" and "extinction of the human race" I knew you had no clue. The first is an appeal to nature logical fallacy... so you fail, and the second is ridiculous because approximately 4% of the population has been gay since recorded history... and we still exist... so you fail.
Click to expand...

So your telling me that because it has always been so it is good and should get support? Evil has existed since recorded history, does that make it OK? I did not say that the population would be majority gay should government support gay marriage, I suggested that if you take it to the extreme and apply the litmus test as to the results it would be disastrous for the nation.

CaptainCourtesy said:
So, since you have presented no logical or substantial ramifications, do you want to try again?
Click to expand...

Just because you failed to understand my points does not make them wrong, it just makes you suspect. No, I think I will stick with what I said.
 
Reality Land said:
At least they have the option of procreating and you are talking about a vast minority.
Click to expand...
You mean similar to homosexuals?

And no, people who cannot conceive do not have the option to conceive.

Hardley a good comparison.
Click to expand...
How so?

And not all people should have children based on their IQ. Some genes pools just need to end. :roll
Click to expand...
I agree. Maybe we should start with people who are against giving equal rights to others?


Well, I guess our definition of support is different then. Nice spin.
Click to expand...
What spin?
 
Last edited:
Reality Land said:
it would be disastrous for the nation.
Click to expand...
What exactly would be the disaster? What's evil about it? Even the idea that it's "unnatural" doesn't hold up to scrutiny, since we find same-sex sexuality in all sorts of animal species.
 
Reality Land said:
So your telling me that because it has always been so it is good and should get support? Evil has existed since recorded history, does that make it OK? I did not say that the population would be majority gay should government support gay marriage, I suggested that if you take it to the extreme and apply the litmus test as to the results it would be disastrous for the nation.
Click to expand...

And since this has never happened, your point is irrelevant. Further, if you are claiming that homosexuality is "bad" that's not much of an argument. You'd have to substantiate it.



Just because you failed to understand my points does not make them wrong, it just makes you suspect. No, I think I will stick with what I said.
Click to expand...

I understood your points perfectly. They were wrong and showed no insight or understanding of the issue. If you want to stick with them, that's fine, but recognize that they are just that... wrong, uninsightful, and demonstrate a lack of understanding.
 
Last edited:
Rassales said:
What exactly would be the disaster? What's evil about it? Even the idea that it's "unnatural" doesn't hold up to scrutiny, since we find same-sex sexuality in all sorts of animal species.
Click to expand...

Are you now putting the Humane race on the same level as lower animal life forms?
Yes, there are many examples of homosexual activity in lower life forms. But they have an excuse, they are lower life forms. :doh
 
Reality Land said:
Are you now putting the Humane race on the same level as lower animal life forms?
Yes, there are many examples of homosexual activity in lower life forms. But they have an excuse, they are lower life forms. :doh
Click to expand...

I will warn you that if you are stating that those who practice homosexuality are lower life forms, here at DP that would be considered hate speech... which is against the rules. I will caution you to NOT do that. Consider this an official warning.
 
Reality Land said:
Are you now putting the Humane race on the same level as lower animal life forms?
Yes, there are many examples of homosexual activity in lower life forms. But they have an excuse, they are lower life forms. :doh
Click to expand...
Okay, define "natural" then? Doesn't that have something to do with...you know...nature?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
And since this has never happened, your point is irrelevant. Further, if you are claiming that homosexuality is "bad" that's not much of an argument. You'd have to substantiate it.
Click to expand...

It is a life style that is contrary to the established accepted norm of today's majority. It is bad because it is fruitless. It is a self serving and selfish lifestyle. It gives nothing back to society in the way of the most precious thing there is; new human life. It is a consumption only lifestyle and to be honest, a royal pain in the neck. But I guess they at least contribute to the interior appearance of our homes and beauty of our women as home decorators and beauticians. :mrgreen:


CaptainCourtesy said:
I understood your points perfectly. They were wrong and showed no insight or understanding of the issue. If you want to stick with them, that's fine, but recognize that they are just that... wrong, uninsightful, and demonstrate a lack of understanding.
Click to expand...

Oh I see. You are one of those types that thinks just because you say a person is wrong it is a fact. You garner your moral strength and perspective from the support you get from others who think as you do and believe the lies because you have told it to one another so many times. You are going to change the World no matter what the majority want.
 
Question, if something that is not deemed natural at the moment, is repeated over a period of time, could it then be considered natural?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I will warn you that if you are stating that those who practice homosexuality are lower life forms, here at DP that would be considered hate speech... which is against the rules. I will caution you to NOT do that. Consider this an official warning.
Click to expand...

I can only question your ability to understand the written English language when you read what I have said and think it is a hate speech. You are warning me for an infraction I did not commit? I see I may have made a mistake thinking that this forum was sincere in its claim to supporting intellectual debate. Seems the propaganda machine is rolling along nicely here...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom