• 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.
???? do you like making stuff up as you go along? does it make you feel right when you are wrong?
LMAO sorry you couldnt be any further from the truth and nothing he implies that at all except in your fantasy world where you read what you want to, get a clue.

Nothing to contribute but insults?

The parts I like best about your meaningless argument is YOU are always telling ME how iI think and the REAL meanings of things I type even though I tell you different LOL

No, I am telling you what you posted. The meaning is pretty clear.

Me - my favorite color is blue
you - no its not, you say it is but i can tell its red
me - no seriously its blue
you - you shouldnt like red because other colors are better
me - if you say so but i like blue
you - cant believe you hate blue so much and you love red
:2rofll:

keep them coming its funny
if you need clarification on something though try asking instead or ignoring or guessing wrong

Again more nonsensical rants, nothing even to respond too.
 
Last edited:
Moderator's Warning:
Heated discussion is fine, but talking about other posters is not. Let's tone things down a bit please.
 
Not according to the quote I posted.
actually yes according to the post and its context just not to according to your wrong interpentation of it LOL



I challenge anyone to make any sense out of this paragraph or how it has anything to do with my initial response.

simply only pointing out how wrong you are and you dont know what you are talking about LMAO






I don’t know, it sounds like you argued exactly that.
yes i argued how YOUR morals dont matter because its discrimination UNDER THE LAW, you still get to practise YOUR morals, you dont not get to force them on others and it also it has nothing to do with "my"morals hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

again I think you make up stuff in your head has you go lol



Not really but again you can think what you like.
deny it all you want the facts remain the same :) it is discrimination plain and simple


Yes your reasoning has already been debunked.

The sad part is this whole post you made was nothing more than a rant with no substance and made almost no snese.

not in one single post of yours EVER lmao
i didnt have to counter because you CLEARLY dont understand the debate and make up your own wrong opinions to what you think people mean when they say something totally different

sorry you failed keep trying though this is fun :D

please argue things actually said and meant it will help us keep on course ;)
 
Last edited:
I was not debating anything at all. I was answering your question.

Actually, you didn't answer my question of how civil unions somehow don't legitimize gay relationships at all (even though they give identical legal rights to those of marriage), while a simple word change ("marriage") magically causes those relationships to be legitimized.

This is not true. Without a state license you cannot have a sacramental marriage, period. This is a fact. So no, I am not ignoring anything.

Hmm I didn't know every church in the nation had that requirement for their sacramental marriage... Anyway, you can't deny the separation of church and state and here's why: You don't need proof of a sacramental marriage in order to receive a civil marriage license.

I am against civil marriage in all cases. As I stated, the government should never have gotten into the marriage business. Since they are now, and this is not going to change. We have to work with what we have.

So you're against civil marriage at all, fine with me. But they do exist, separate from any religion (the government doesn't favor Catholic marriages over atheist marriages), so your religious objection to someone else's marriage who follows another religion shouldn't influence the law, sorry.

This is not what I was referring to. Since you are new here, I don’t mind repeating what I have said many times before.

A civil union recognized by the state and honored by the Federal government constitutionally must be recognized by all states as a legal and binding contract, with all the benefits of marriage.

Fine, let's say that federal civil unions are legally equal for the sake of argument. Given that, I still don't understand how you approve of federal civil unions, but literally the substitution of the word "marriage" for "civil union" somehow is a huge problem. I mean, the word "marriage" under federal law doesn't have the same definition, requirements, etc. as the word "marriage" in a Christian religion like Catholicism, for example. So the definitions of civil marriage and sacramental marriage are different anyway. It's not like including same-sex couples in civil marriage would affect sacramental marriage because they're separate institutions as it is.

If it were not valid gay marriage would already be the law, it however is not. So yes it is just as relevant as anyone else’s opinion.

Just because it is an “opinion” in and of itself, does not make it irrelevant.

If there was a true separation of church and state like the Constitution guarantees, gay marriage would already be the law. The problem is, politicians don't always separate their own religious views from their decisions within the government. You're right that it simply being an opinion doesn't make it irrelevant. However, in this context you have admitted that your opinion is based completely on your religious views, which DOES make it an irrelevant opinion when we're discussing laws and policies for a nation that is home to many, many people who do not follow your religion. That's the point of a separation of church and state, so that no religion can use the law to impose its views on other people.

You asked the question. All I did was explain it.

As for your view, that’s cool and you are welcome to it, but this alone does not make you correct. Fact is 70+ percent of this country identifies them selves as Christian. This alone makes it matter. We do have a secular government, but we have a predominantly Christian population.

Any large block of voters is free to vote their conscience on the issues. The victory of anti-gay marriage proponents in CA, should be ample proof of this. So what my God says certainly does matter to me, and because it also matters to 224,437,959 Christian Americans, it should matter to you as well.

I mean, I'm Catholic and I still don't think Catholic morals should be the basis of civil laws that everyone, Catholics and non-Catholics alike, has to obey or face punishment from the government. If a Protestant tried to make their religious laws into secular laws that I had to obey, I'd be pissed because I don't believe in them. So no, it doesn't matter that 70% of the nation identify as Christian. It doesn't give Christianity the right to oppress religious minorities under our secular government. It doesn't.

Where did this silly notion of “the state has a duty to treat all citizens equally” come from? If this were the case “hate laws” and “affirmative action” would not exist, so no the state is under no “obligation.”

I agree that their is no religious obligation to recognize civil marriage now. Since government can pass no law forcing churches to accept this, it is not really a concern.

We will see about the rest.

I guess I misspoke, the state has a duty to ensure equal treatment for all citizens. That's the reason for hate laws and affirmative action, to counteract the unequal treatment that certain citizens face.
 
Nothing to contribute but insults?

no insults, you clearly misunderstood what you THINK you read or what I think
in now way what so ever do I want "freedom of thought or conscience done away with" LMAO how you could be so wrong about that Ill never know. Actually if things go my way youll have MORE freedom of thought.

Guess only YOURS matters though in stead of other americans



No, I am telling you what you posted. The meaning is pretty clear.
but you are in fact NOT, you are telling me how YOU wrongly interpret them, thats whats clear, since you dont get to make that decesion you see how you are just wrong.

Like I said if i say blue is my favorite color you dont get to tell me its red?????



Again more nonsensical rants, nothing even to respond too.

agreed because you cant, argue what is being said and not what you are making up in your head, like
- my morals are more important
- i want to be rid of freedom of thought or conscience

none of these things are true by any stretch, so again, ill be waiting for you to give a good reason
 
Last edited:
I mean, the word "marriage" under law doesn't have the same definition, requirements, etc. as the word "marriage" in a Christian religion like Catholicism, for example. So the definitions of civil marriage and sacramental marriage are different anyway. It's not like including same-sex couples in civil marriage would affect sacramental marriage because they're separate institutions as it is.

exactly, this is what nobody gets on the other side, this is a meaningless argument because right now the word marriage is ALREADY different under the law

so if the word marriage is so sacred(it not, its just a word) its already ruined for people that think that way if its that easy.

things are only sacred to those who have those opinions, this wouldn't change JUST LIKE NOW, the fact that a singing bear could marry me right now does NOT make marriage "not sacred" to everyone on the planet, thats just silly and logically undependable

example:
money is sacred to me
oh no, it cant be any more because SOMEBODY ELSE spent "sacred" money on gummie bears, money is ruined forever oooooooooh the agony

nope, not true, "I" could still hold money as sacred as "i" wanted too lol
 
Because they practice unhealthy and perverted sexual practices, exclusively.

Unhealthy? Evidence of how their sexual acts or more unhealthy than heteros that practice the same acts please, otherwise, you should be trying to not allow heteros that engage in anal and oral the right to be married as well, right? ;)

Perverted? Opinionated rubbish...
 
no insults, you clearly misunderstood what you THINK you read or what I think
in now way what so ever do I want "freedom of thought or conscience done away with" LMAO how you could be so wrong about that Ill never know. Actually if things go my way youll have MORE freedom of thought.

Guess only YOURS matters though in stead of other americans




but you are in fact NOT, you are telling me how YOU wrongly interpret them, thats whats clear, since you dont get to make that decesion you see how you are just wrong.

Like I said if i say blue is my favorite color you dont get to tell me its red?????





agreed because you cant, argue what is being said and not what you are making up in your head, like
- my morals are more important
- i want to be rid of freedom of thought or conscience

none of these things are true by any stretch, so again, ill be waiting for you to give a good reason

Out of the last three pages or so that I have read, you have been disrespectful in every single post. How and why you don't see it is amazingly bizarre...
 
Actually, you didn't answer my question of how civil unions somehow don't legitimize gay relationships at all (even though they give identical legal rights to those of marriage), while a simple word change ("marriage") magically causes those relationships to be legitimized.

Because it does in a sense that society would be more accepting or make it look more normal.

Hmm I didn't know every church in the nation had that requirement for their sacramental marriage... Anyway, you can't deny the separation of church and state and here's why: You don't need proof of a sacramental marriage in order to receive a civil marriage license.

You can not be legally married without a license from the state.

Who is denying the separation of church and state? You said you can get married in a church without a license, I said no you can’t.

So you're against civil marriage at all, fine with me. But they do exist, separate from any religion (the government doesn't favor Catholic marriages over atheist marriages), so your religious objection to someone else's marriage who follows another religion shouldn't influence the law, sorry.

And I also stated we have to work with what we have.

Our voices and desires count every bit as much as anyone else’s. So we vote and that is acceptable.

So in essence our morals or religion certainly do affect the law.

Fine, let's say that federal civil unions are legally equal for the sake of argument. Given that, I still don't understand how you approve of federal civil unions, but literally the substitution of the word "marriage" for "civil union" somehow is a huge problem. I mean, the word "marriage" under federal law doesn't have the same definition, requirements, etc. as the word "marriage" in a Christian religion like Catholicism, for example. So the definitions of civil marriage and sacramental marriage are different anyway. It's not like including same-sex couples in civil marriage would affect sacramental marriage because they're separate institutions as it is.

Has nothing to do with that in reality. It would be like me voting to make prostitution legal. It is a sin, so I will note vote for it or condone it, period. Gay marriage is the same thing as far as I am concerned.

I guess we are restricting the rights of females to sell their body to the highest bidder as well? I mean they do own their own body correct?
Same thing.

If there was a true separation of church and state like the Constitution guarantees, gay marriage would already be the law. The problem is, politicians don't always separate their own religious views from their decisions within the government. You're right that it simply being an opinion doesn't make it irrelevant. However, in this context you have admitted that your opinion is based completely on your religious views, which DOES make it an irrelevant opinion when we're discussing laws and policies for a nation that is home to many, many people who do not follow your religion. That's the point of a separation of church and state, so that no religion can use the law to impose its views on other people.

No it does not. We are, all of us the sum of our experiences and our morals are shaped by that. Each individuals morals guide them and many of us remain true to those values. This is very relevant as Christians are members of this society and are capable of shaping it like anyone else.

I mean, I'm Catholic and I still don't think Catholic morals should be the basis of civil laws that everyone, Catholics and non-Catholics alike, has to obey or face punishment from the government. If a Protestant tried to make their religious laws into secular laws that I had to obey, I'd be pissed because I don't believe in them. So no, it doesn't matter that 70% of the nation identify as Christian. It doesn't give Christianity the right to oppress religious minorities under our secular government. It doesn't.

I agree, I don’t want to live in a theocracy. The Bible was not meant to be a system of government. It is a guide for our spiritual salvation. That said, this is not an excuse to live with what we see as corruption and are duty bound to fight against it legally.

I guess I misspoke, the state has a duty to ensure equal treatment for all citizens. That's the reason for hate laws and affirmative action, to counteract the unequal treatment that certain citizens face.

In trying to counteract unequal treatment, they cause more and create a larger rift.
 
Last edited:
Out of the last three pages or so that I have read, you have been disrespectful in every single post. How and why you don't see it is amazingly bizarre...

really? LMAO oh well, he could always just stay on topic and not make stuff up
I guess if a person lies about me thats not disrespectful and I should not reply?
I guess if you read the whole thread and a poster insisted they new what "i really meant" thats not either

sorry, i dont see it because I think my responses are justified to this particular poster who makes stuff up :D
thanks for your input though, if you see me doing this with a poster who isnt making stuff up or already hasnt tried to pole me first please let me know
 
actually yes according to the post and its context just not to according to your wrong interpentation of it LOL

simply only pointing out how wrong you are and you dont know what you are talking about LMAO

yes i argued how YOUR morals dont matter because its discrimination UNDER THE LAW, you still get to practise YOUR morals, you dont not get to force them on others and it also it has nothing to do with "my"morals hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

again I think you make up stuff in your head has you go lol

deny it all you want the facts remain the same :) it is discrimination plain and simple

not in one single post of yours EVER lmao
i didnt have to counter because you CLEARLY dont understand the debate and make up your own wrong opinions to what you think people mean when they say something totally different

sorry you failed keep trying though this is fun :D

please argue things actually said and meant it will help us keep on course ;)

I am done responding to you. You don’t want to have a civil conversation.

God bless.
 
I am done responding to you. You don’t want to have a civil conversation.

God bless.

LMAO I actually do, i would LOVE to but you have to argue what is being said instead of making things up. And even when you totally misunderstand things and I correct you, you have to except that you dont get to decide what "I" think instead of just sticking to your wrong assumptions. Argue what the OP said or how I ACTUALLY feel not what you THINK the OP said and what you GUESS i feel. Dont know what so hard about that.

When you are ready, and have god reason, please let me know.
Good day to you also, god bless
 
Because it does in a sense that society would be more accepting or make it look more normal.

But you support civil unions...?? Surely they make it more normalized than it would otherwise be. Both civil unions and civil marriage legitimize and normalize it to different degrees. If you're against normalizing it at all, then I don't understand why you claim to support civil unions.

You can not be legally married without a license from the state.

Um, exactly... that's what a legal marriage is, getting recognized by the state... It has nothing to do with religion because atheists can get legally married. Again, that's the separation between church and state. You don't need to be religious to get equal state benefits.

Who is denying the separation of church and state? You said you can get married in a church without a license, I said no you can’t.

In YOUR church you can't get married without a legal marriage license maybe, but you can't assume that that is true for every single religion practiced by the more than 300,000,000 people in the U.S. Religions are free to establish their own requirements for their own marriages that are recognized by their own churches. And they are not forced by the government to recognize all civil marriages.

I agree, I don’t want to live in a theocracy. The Bible was not meant to be a system of government. It is a guide for our spiritual salvation. That said, this is not an excuse to live with what we see as corruption and are duty bound to fight against it legally.

So correct me if I'm wrong, but according to this and the rest of your post, you essentially believe that everyone should be forced to follow your religious beliefs because YOU believe them to be right and it's your duty to make them the laws that everyone has to follow, whether they believe in your God or not. If you want to preach that people are sinning, be my guest. But you DO NOT have the right to enshrine your religious beliefs that I don't agree with into my laws that I have to obey. Again, the problem is that not everyone in this country follows your religion! And that is an important point whether you want to admit it or not.

Think of it this way. No one is restricting your right to practice your religious beliefs. But you are trying to restrict other people's rights to practice their legal rights, free from the influence of YOUR religion. And that's not acceptable.
 
Last edited:
Think of it this way. No one is restricting your right to practice your religious beliefs. But you are trying to restrict other people's rights to practice their legal rights, free from the influence of YOUR religion. And that's not acceptable.

exactly, of all the parts I agree with this is the most basic and meaningfull
 
But you support civil unions...?? Surely they make it more normalized than it would otherwise be. Both civil unions and civil marriage legitimize and normalize it to different degrees. If you're against normalizing it at all, then I don't understand why you claim to support civil unions.

Civil unions are nothing more than a civil contract recognized by the state. That’s it, no implications or justifying of sin. Holy matrimony is not in any way the same thing. It is a union brought together by God, not the state.

Um, exactly... that's what a legal marriage is, getting recognized by the state... It has nothing to do with religion because atheists can get legally married. Again, that's the separation between church and state. You don't need to be religious to get equal state benefits.

Does not make it right, as I said it is the way our system is and we have to work within the system.

YOU are denying it. In YOUR church you can't get married without a legal marriage license maybe, but you can't assume that that is true for every single religion practiced by the more than 300,000,000 people in the U.S. Religions are free to establish their own requirements for their own marriages that are recognized by their own churches. And they are not forced by the government to recognize all civil marriages.

No I am not. You cannot have a legally recognized marriage without a license from the state, period. This goes for any state and any religion. Without it the best you can get is a common law marriage after having lived together for so many years. The amount of time again depends on the state.

So correct me if I'm wrong, but according to this and the rest of your post, you essentially believe that everyone should be forced to follow your religious beliefs because you believe them to be right and it's your duty to make them the laws that everyone has to follow, whether they believe in your God or not.

That is over simplified, and no. It is not about forcing anyone to do anything. Unless you want to force Christians to accept things they see as morally wrong.

We have a secular government that cannot pass laws based on religion. This of course does not mean the people cannot vote based on their own moral code even if religious. This is what I am referring to.

I am under no restriction when it comes to supporting laws or idea’s I see as right or wrong. No such thing as a sin that is OK. In the end it is still wrong and I and many others will not support or condone this.

If you want to preach that people are sinning, be my guest. But you DO NOT have the right to enshrine your religious beliefs that I don't agree with into my laws that I have to obey. Again, the problem is that not everyone in this country follows your religion!

If I am not willing to follow the laws in the Bible, I would be a hypocrite to expect anyone else to do the same. This is also a sin.

Think of it this way. No one is restricting your right to practice your religious beliefs. But you are trying to restrict other people's rights to practice their own beliefs. And that's not acceptable.

No right exists for two men or women to marry the same sex as far as I know. Now if the state wants to grant that power via a civil union, I am OK with that. But don’t try and tell me a same sex couple is a marriage, it’s not.

PS I noticed you ignored my prostitute comment? What about polygamy etc?
 
Last edited:
No they don't. Your statement is false, and not based on any kind of fact.
Its not a fact that male queers have anal sex? Its not a fact that the anus isn't designed for sex and is easily damaged? Its not a fact that the anus is full of excrement, which is up to 50% live bacteria by weight?
 
Unhealthy? Evidence of how their sexual acts or more unhealthy than heteros that practice the same acts please, otherwise, you should be trying to not allow heteros that engage in anal and oral the right to be married as well, right? ;)

Perverted? Opinionated rubbish...

I'm perverted, yet you advocate queer sex, even for non-queers. Kindly explain your logic.
 
Its not a fact that male queers have anal sex? Its not a fact that the anus isn't designed for sex and is easily damaged? Its not a fact that the anus is full of excrement, which is up to 50% live bacteria by weight?
Is it not a fact that many hetrosexual couples (or groups) have anal sex?
 
I'm perverted, yet you advocate queer sex, even for non-queers. Kindly explain your logic.

You do realize that the sex acts performed by gays are also performed by a large portion of the strait community? You do realize that many gays do not have penetrative sex?
 
When heteros engage in queer sex acts they are indeed engaging in unhealthy sexual practices. I'm sorry but I don't see your point.

What part of mutual masturbation is unhealthy? Just how unhealthy is oral sex?
 
Civil unions are nothing more than a civil contract recognized by the state. That's it, no implications or justifying of sin. Holy matrimony is not in any way the same thing. It is a union brought together by God, not the state.

That's. exactly. what. a. civil. marriage. is. A civil contract recognized by the state. And I feel like I'm repeating myself over and over again. This is a discussion of civil marriages recognized under the law. This is NOT a discussion about a union brought together by God. Sacramental marriage is a union brought together by God. Civil marriage, which is what we are discussing, is a union brought together by the state. That's why I don't understand why you keep bringing up holy matrimony and religious reasons. If you oppose secular gay marriage, you should have a legitimate secular reason. My whole point is that holy matrimony IS separate from civil marriage.

Does not make it right, as I said it is the way our system is and we have to work within the system.

That doesn't make what right? Atheists getting married under secular law and receiving legal benefits?

No I am not. You cannot have a legally recognized marriage without a license from the state, period. This goes for any state and any religion. Without it the best you can get is a common law marriage after having lived together for so many years. The amount of time again depends on the state.

I'm honestly confused about what point you're trying to make. Having a legally recognized marriage by definition means you have a license from the state. There is a separation of church and state though because: 1) I can be legally married (with a license from the state) without proof of a religious marriage 2) I can receive sacramental marriage without being legally married (a fundamental Mormon wedding including more than two people could be a sacramental marriage without being recognized by the government with a separate civil marriage license). How can you argue against that?

That is over simplified, and no. It is not about forcing anyone to do anything. Unless you want to force Christians to accept things they see as morally wrong.

We have a secular government that cannot pass laws based on religion. This of course does not mean the people cannot vote based on their own moral code even if religious. This is what I am referring to.

I am under no restriction when it comes to supporting laws or ideas I see as right or wrong. No such thing as a sin that is OK. In the end it is still wrong and I and many others will not support or condone this.

By voting for laws that are drenched in your own religious values and morals, you are forcing people to comply with them. You seem to just ignore the fact that other people have different religious beliefs than you, and that they deserve as much respect as yours. You think something is wrong that other people may not agree. Other people may think something is wrong that you don't think are, and it would be unfair to you for them to vote those beliefs into law simply because THEY belief that it is right. An American Muslim who believes that women should wear veils may think women who don't are sinning, but in good conscience they should not vote for laws that force women to wear veils or face legal consequences. It's the same thing with your views.

No right exists for two men or women to marry the same sex as far as I know. Now if the state wants to grant that power via a civil union, I am OK with that. But dont try and tell me a same sex couple is a marriage, its not.

Really? Because that exact right does exists in several nations, states, and municipalities around the world.

The fundamental problem I have with your arguments are that they seem to suggest that your views are the only correct ones and the only ones that deserve to be respected. When you say "don't tell me a same-sex couple is marriage, it's not," do you not understand that to other people, it is? It's not to you because, correct me if I'm wrong, your religion says it isn't. Well, there are churches where same-sex couples ARE in fact marriage, and there are Americans who DO view same-sex couples as marriage. Where are their rights? Your rights are not restricted if same-sex marriages are legalized. But other people's rights are restricted if they are banned.

PS I noticed you ignored my prostitute comment? What about polygamy etc?

Sorry, I must have lost it in the shuffle lol. I don't think prostitution should be illegal, in fact, because people have the freedom to do with their bodies what they like. There's no one else affected by that decision so it should be the person's decision if they choose to be a prostitute. My personal views, which are admittedly based in my religious upbringing, are that being a prostitute is a sinful occupation. But sinful by MY definition does not equal sinful to everyone, and it should not equal illegal for everyone. If they are coerced into prostitution that is different, but only because I have a problem with coercion. Polygamy within a religious context should be legal because of the separation of church and state. But there are serious legal obstacles in state recognition of a polygamist marriage. I mean, how would you work out things like child custody, inheritance, taxes, etc. if everyone in the union were to be treated equally, especially if there were no limit to the number of "spouses" able to enter into the union? People could create giant unions of millions of people. So I'm against legal polygamist marriage because I just honestly don't know how that would even be possible.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom