• 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!

Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

  • No

    Votes: 99 79.2%
  • Yes, explain

    Votes: 26 20.8%

  • Total voters
    125
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sure they can.

Meanwhile, some hetero marriages can't create families, yet you seem completely unconcerned with them.

Infertile couples, interracial marriage and incest: these and other topics this thread is NOT about can all be yours with only one RedHerring.
 
You mean to tell me that we got like 30 some-odd votes in the last few hours?

:doh
 
This is why I said you are playing the God card, because you throw in the Bible and say that since something in there says something is this way or that way, it must be so.

Yawn.

#1 Your question was "Because you said so?."

Because you asked me I threw in the Bible when you knew what my answer would be?

Then you completly ignore the rest of what I said?

Not very honest.

Yawn.

Contradiction #1


Ah, so ... prolonged indoctrination? :rofl

Now you are just acting like an ass. :roll:

Something we finally agree on. I agree its wrong.

You have a short term memory problem? We also agreed on adoption.

That is pretty irrelevant at this point though.
 
Last edited:
Infertile couples, interracial marriage and incest: these and other topics this thread is NOT about can all be yours with only one RedHerring.

You of all people know its not a red herring. You ran head-on into this issue and then realized you needed to run away.

I'll pose it to everyone else - if this is about having children, why do you allow those who can't have children (post-menopausal women, for instance) the right to marry?
 
This is why I said you are playing the God card, because you throw in the Bible and say that since something in there says something is this way or that way, it must be so.

That's because that's all there is to it. You won't hear any rational, logical, secular argument as to why the rights to contract of the People should be infringed upon. It's all religious argument to use government force against the rights of others in the end.
 
I'll pose it to everyone else - if this is about having children, why do you allow those who can't have children (post-menopausal women, for instance) the right to marry?

They were always seen as a benign exception. A couple married in order to form a family, but their biology failed.

You now want to expand the exception into the rule, where instead of allowing people who wanted to start a family but couldn't, now you want people who have no intention of forming a family.

I don't see how that helps solve any existing problem.
 
They were always seen as a benign exception.

So consider gays a benign exception too.

A couple married in order to form a family, but their biology failed.

That covers infertility, but what about post-menopausal women? We know they can't have children. It's normal, not a failure or an exception. How many older women get married every day, yet you seem completely unconcerned with that?

You now want to expand the exception into the rule, where instead of allowing people who wanted to start a family but couldn't, now you want people who have no intention of forming a family.

Uh, no, people who have no intention of forming a family get married every day. Some dont' want to, many cannot (like post-menopausal women). And, as you have been reminded, gay couples can indeed start families through adoption, artifical insemination, or by caring for children they had from previous heterosexual marriages.

Society already routinely accepts the marriage of people who can't have children, and who we know can't have children (post-menopausal women). So saying that marriage is for children is a completely load of bull****. So everyone stop saying that, or else advocate banning marriage for old ladies. You gonna do that again, Jerry?
 
Uh, no, people who have no intention of forming a family get married every day.

Last I checked, this was America and having a family or desire to have a family or plans to have a family were not pre-requisite to obtaining a marriage license. The biology argument against same sex couples fails on all fronts.
 
Last I checked, this was America and having a family or desire to have a family or plans to have a family were not pre-requisite to obtaining a marriage license. The biology argument against same sex couples fails on all fronts.

Yeah, and you'd think Jerry would learn his lesson. Last time I confronted him with this, he (temporarily) decided that we would just have to ban older women from marrying too. He's nothing if not consistent.
 
So consider gays a benign exception too.



That covers infertility, but what about post-menopausal women? We know they can't have children. It's normal, not a failure or an exception. How many older women get married every day, yet you seem completely unconcerned with that?



Uh, no, people who have no intention of forming a family get married every day. Some dont' want to, many cannot (like post-menopausal women). And, as you have been reminded, gay couples can indeed start families through adoption, artifical insemination, or by caring for children they had from previous heterosexual marriages.

Society already routinely accepts the marriage of people who can't have children, and who we know can't have children (post-menopausal women). So saying that marriage is for children is a completely load of bull****. So everyone stop saying that, or else advocate banning marriage for old ladies. You gonna do that again, Jerry?

I'm sorry your personal religious beliefs are not in line with modern science, but sociologically speaking marriage is about socializing children no matter what culture you look at, anywhere in the globe, at any point in history.

Where gay marriage is about socializing children, I support gay marriage. Where gay marriage is about Rights and/or Equality, I oppose it, because marriage never has been and is not about rights and equality.

The same is true of any form of marriage be it mixed race, mixed religion, etc.

***
The reason "gays" are not a benign exception is due to the fact that not all gays are childless. "Childless couples" are the benign exception whether they are gay or straight only when child raising couples are the rule.

So, I can consider gay childless couples a benign exception when the typical average gay couple is raising children; hence my continued struggle to pry like teeth actual number from you people about gays raising children, and the continued effort to steer you all away from the loosing 'rights' argument.
 
I'm sorry your personal religious beliefs are not in line with modern science,

I've never mentioned my personal religious beliefs. They are irrelevant to this debate.

but sociologically speaking marriage is about socializing children no matter what culture you look at, anywhere in the globe, at any point in history.

That's debatable, but clearly that's not always the case, even right here in the U.S.

Where gay marriage is about socializing children, I support gay marriage.

So you support allowing gays to marry when they have children or intend to?

Where gay marriage is about Rights and/or Equality, I oppose it, because marriage never has been and is not about rights and equality.[/QUOTE]

And where STRAIGHT marriage is NOT about children, do you oppose it?

The reason "gays" are not a benign exception is due to the fact that not all gays are childless. "Childless couples" are the benign exception whether they are gay or straight only when child raising couples are the rule.

So you support gay marriage with kids, and oppose straight marriage without kids. Right?

So if you are divorced or widowed, and you want to marry an older woman who can't have children, that's too damn bad, huh?

So, I can consider gay childless couples a benign exception when the typical average gay couple is raising children; hence my continued struggle to pry like teeth actual number from you people about gays raising children, and the continued effort to steer you all away from the loosing 'rights' argument.

I haven't made a "rights" argument. I'm just busy destroying the ridiculous "it's all about the children" argument.
 
…Stuff and Things…
Hmm...

This discussion is getting quite long winded, so I shall attempt to condense it.

Issue: Gay marriage.
Your question: Is it right to stop it.
My answer: No.

My views on the implementation of such:

I am of the opinion that all legal marriage contracts henceforth should be renamed, with the purpose of eliminating the word "marriage" from legal usage in this sense.
The fact that this would eliminate the usage of the term “marriage” in legal documents has the welcome side effect of potentially eliminating some opposition to allowing gay couples to receive the same tax breaks as heterosexual couples.

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

Marriage was originally a religious institution, used to join two (or in some cases more?) persons in a union under the eyes of whatever entity they believed had power over them.

In the various states of the USA (which is the area this discussion focuses on) at some point in the past, it was decided that extending tax breaks to married couples was a good idea. As I understand it, this was intended to promote financially and socially stable households; as such things are a positive for the economy. Additional tax breaks were offered to those who had children, with the purpose of promoting procreation.
 
#1 Your question was "Because you said so?."

Because you asked me I threw in the Bible when you knew what my answer would be?

Then you completly ignore the rest of what I said?

Not very honest.

Yawn.
You're confusing me, probably not purposely, but something's not right ...

Religion and what something says in the Bible are not practical sources of information when it comes to fighting gay marriage, mainly because the world we live in has so many religions and views.

Also, I yawned first. :rofl

Now you are just acting like an ass. :roll:
An ass with jokes. ;)
 
So you support allowing gays to marry when they have children or intend to?

Absolutely. We have way to many children in the foster system and becoming a part of a family can only be a good thing for them. All evidence demonstrates that gay couples can raise children just as well as heteros so who gives a flying **** if the couple is of the same sex.

And where STRAIGHT marriage is NOT about children, do you oppose it?

If I were to write the Constitutional Amendment on marriage reform, my guidelines would wipe out over half the hetero marriages which exist today in the same stroke giving gays "marriage" rights.

So you support gay marriage with kids, and oppose straight marriage without kids. Right?

While that's the general idea, my position is a little more nuanced. A couple doesn't need to have children at the moment they marry. Intent to have children or having had children are fine. This is where that benign exception comes into play, where an older couple who marry simply for companionship benefits the couple and their family through proxy. Those exceptions are admirable so long as they are exceptions and not the new purpose of marriage.

So if you are divorced or widowed, and you want to marry an older woman who can't have children, that's too damn bad, huh?

Here's another detail which I'm an example of: Divorced parents with minor children should not marry until the youngest child in the home turns 18. The reason behind it is that the leading cause of divorce among second marriages are fights related to step children v. step parents; especially in the teen years. In Jerry Land your marriage license application would be denied if you had minor children in home no different then if you were trying to marry your 1st cousin.
 
Last edited:
You're confusing me, probably not purposely, but something's not right ...

Religion and what something says in the Bible are not practical sources of information when it comes to fighting gay marriage, mainly because the world we live in has so many religions and views.

I don't agree. It is an important part of our society and it does affect us socially, economically etc.

The majority of this country identify themselfs as Christians. So they have input into the system right or wrong. This needs to be accepted and the opinion respected just as you expect yours to be. In other words it needs to be taken into account before any decision is made. So far this has been the case.

Also, I yawned first. :rofl

Trying to pull rank? :lol:

An ass with jokes. ;)

So you think you got game now? ;)
 
Last edited:
Here's another detail which I'm an example of: Divorced parents with minor children should not marry until the youngest child in the home turns 18. The reason behind it is that the leading cause of divorce among second marriages are fights related to step children v. step parents; especially in the teen years. In Jerry Land your marriage license application would be denied if you had minor children in home no different then if you were trying to marry your 1st cousin.

That makes no sense. Why must you limit freedom like that?

What about the possibly thousands of single parents who remarried and created a happy family? You deny them the same rights?
 
one man / one woman .. God's plan .. God's design . . . any deviation is perversion
 
Not true. It is a fact children with 2 parents do much better than children with one.

And considering the success of the mother and father family set up for many centuries. Your comment is just anecdotal garbage.

Sorry, no cigar.

Cigar? You think that you are operating in a superior position or something? :roll:

Stick to the point. You said, "No. It's a fact children do better with a mother and a father." and that is a load of junk. Children with a sexually molesting dad and an alocoholic mother are not better off than children of a caring and nurturing single parent or gay couple. Arguing against that is either ignorant or arrogant, either way doesn't look to well.

If you want ot qualify your statement, then please, go ahead and do so. But such an open and broad statement is simply a joke.


Are you going to debate or just rant?

There Is No Scientific Basis for Concluding That Gay and Lesbian Parents Are Any Less Fit or Capable Than Heterosexual Parents, or That Their Children Are Any Less Psychologically Healthy and Well Adjusted.

According to:

- American Psychological Association
- California Psychological Association
- American Psychiatric Association
- National Association of Social Workers


http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/...er_Psychological_Assn_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf

So what is that expression again? Oh yeah... Put up or shut up. ;)
 
one man / one woman .. God's plan .. God's design . . . any deviation is perversion

Oh, give it a rest. Nobody cares about your stupid religious crap. No, I'm not an atheist either.
 
one man / one woman .. God's plan .. God's design . . . any deviation is perversion

I would almost equate that to trolling.

Almost.
 
one man / one woman .. God's plan .. God's design . . . any deviation is perversion

Funny, it never comes up in the NEW TESTAMENT...

Christians have to run the Jewish Bible and cherry pick a few lines of scripture for evidence...
 
This poll is obviously biased. Not the OP, but the fact that people are multi-voting since getting the number of "yes" or "no" votes up is far more important than actually debating.

Interesting.
 
This poll is obviously biased. Not the OP, but the fact that people are multi-voting since getting the number of "yes" or "no" votes up is far more important than actually debating.

Interesting.

The homophobes are like a gay wedding planner... busy, busy, busy... ;)
 
Stick to the point. You said, "No. It's a fact children do better with a mother and a father." and that is a load of junk. Children with a sexually molesting dad and an alocoholic mother are not better off than children of a caring and nurturing single parent or gay couple.
I'd like to point out that "a sexually molesting dad and an alocoholic mother" do not qualify as a true father or mother in my book.

That said, you are entirely correct that a caring and nurturing parent/parents of any sex/sexes/whatever are far better than a mother and father who are the opposite.
 
Cigar? You think that you are operating in a superior position or something? :roll:

Stick to the point. You said, "No. It's a fact children do better with a mother and a father." and that is a load of junk. Children with a sexually molesting dad and an alocoholic mother are not better off than children of a caring and nurturing single parent or gay couple. Arguing against that is either ignorant or arrogant, either way doesn't look to well.

What does my comment have to do with bad parenting? Nothing. It is a ridicules fallacy argument that has nothing at all to do with what I said.

If you want ot qualify your statement, then please, go ahead and do so. But such an open and broad statement is simply a joke.

The only joke here is you trying to compare an abusive parent to a non-abusive one.

Please either debate or do something else.

There Is No Scientific Basis for Concluding That Gay and Lesbian Parents Are Any Less Fit or Capable Than Heterosexual Parents, or That Their Children Are Any Less Psychologically Healthy and Well Adjusted.

According to:

- American Psychological Association
- California Psychological Association
- American Psychiatric Association
- National Association of Social Workers


http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/...er_Psychological_Assn_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf

So what is that expression again? Oh yeah... Put up or shut up. ;)

Please point out where I said gay and lesbian couples can't be good parents? Please point this out?

I said a child is better off with a mother and a father.

I also support gay couples adopting. If you were not so busy ranting and making personal attacks you mite have seen that.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom