• 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? (PART II)

Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it? (PART II)


  • Total voters
    154
True. It is a negative subsidy, where I come from in quantitative economics.

Chinese ministry of proletariat economics is not a good source of information
 
Explain how you pay more taxes because gay people are married.

You see being gay is icky so of course if they get married it causes mental stress that could lead to someone misfiling their tax returns, this can cause an audit and result in having to pay more taxes
 
2 threads
308 pages
3000+ posts
3+ years

and still not one reason.


Great talks though but the picture gets more and more obvious as time goes on. THere are no reasons to deny equal rights.
 
Some posts on this thread got lost. I'll try to pick up where we left off - I had said it should be allowed because that's what freedom is, but it should be called a partnership because a marriage in matrimony is a union of male and female. It should also be kept discreet. Not looked down upon, but not promoted. I had said the reason for all this is because gay relations are not natural. Nature did not intend for it and we shouldn't teach our children that it's normal and okay, because it's not. I mean, this should be obvious.....

For those who don't see the obvious, humans are male, and female. There are three possible combinations: MM, MF, and FF. Only one of these combinations are natural, resulting in successful procreation (MF). The other two (MM,FF) do not work because they are not natural. If nature had intended it, then males would be able to get pregnant. Just because dogs try to hump your leg, or another male dog, does not make it natural. Animals don't have the awareness that humans possess. If a dog sees a human male wear lipstick and move and talk very femininelike, a dog doesn't know the difference. People do, though.....and you are kidding yourself if you think it's natural and normal, and that we should teach our kids that.
 
1.)Some posts on this thread got lost. I'll try to pick up where we left off - I had said it should be allowed because that's what freedom is,
2.) but it should be called a partnership because a marriage in matrimony is a union of male and female.
3.) It should also be kept discreet.
4.) Not looked down upon, but not promoted.
5.) I had said the reason for all this is because gay relations are not natural.
6.) Nature did not intend for it
7.) and we shouldn't teach our children that it's normal
8.) and okay, because it's not.
9.) I mean, this should be obvious.....
10.) For those who don't see the obvious
11.) humans are male, and female. There are three possible combinations: MM, MF, and FF. Only one of these combinations are natural, resulting in successful procreation (MF).
12.) The other two (MM,FF) do not work because they are not natural. If nature had intended it, then males would be able to get pregnant. Just because dogs try to hump your leg, or another male dog, does not make it natural. Animals don't have the awareness that humans possess. If a dog sees a human male wear lipstick and move and talk very femininelike, a dog doesn't know the difference. People do, though.....
13.) and you are kidding yourself if you think it's natural and normal, and that we should teach our kids that.
you should try to find out where you got lost and you will see your post is simply incorrect.

1.) without it being equal there is no freedom
2.) SSM factually is marriage and marriage is not just one man/one woman, this fact has been proven repeatedly.
3.) that is up to the people married, no different than all other marriages
4.) again see #3 its no different than any other marriage
5.) other than number/ratio game it factually is natural
6.) nature created it
7.) it is factuallly normal
8.) you thinking its not ok is a meaningless opinion and children absolutely should be taught facts reality and civility. Many people think other religions, equal rights for womren and minorities and interracial marriage isnt natural and ok too. THose people are complete wrong and or thier opinions meaningless to the discussion. If parents want to teach them its a sin etc they are free to but in general all children in this country are taught civility and that there are people in the world that are different genders, races, sexual orientations, different abilities physical and mental, different religions, different social and financial status etc etc and we are taught to be civil and not judge/hate. If this type of common sense civility bothers you, you are free to teach you child what you wish while they are with you or home school/private school your child.
9.) yes its obvious that some of the things you said are factually wrong and some is your opinion at best
10..) see #9
11.) meaningless to the discussion, procreation has ZERO to do with a marriage contract
12.) also meaningless to the discussion
13.) see points above showing facts disagree with you


when you have more than already defeated strawmen let us know.
 
Some posts on this thread got lost. I'll try to pick up where we left off - I had said it should be allowed because that's what freedom is, but it should be called a partnership because a marriage in matrimony is a union of male and female. It should also be kept discreet. Not looked down upon, but not promoted. I had said the reason for all this is because gay relations are not natural. Nature did not intend for it and we shouldn't teach our children that it's normal and okay, because it's not. I mean, this should be obvious.....

For those who don't see the obvious, humans are male, and female. There are three possible combinations: MM, MF, and FF. Only one of these combinations are natural, resulting in successful procreation (MF). The other two (MM,FF) do not work because they are not natural. If nature had intended it, then males would be able to get pregnant. Just because dogs try to hump your leg, or another male dog, does not make it natural. Animals don't have the awareness that humans possess. If a dog sees a human male wear lipstick and move and talk very femininelike, a dog doesn't know the difference. People do, though.....and you are kidding yourself if you think it's natural and normal, and that we should teach our kids that.

Marriage is many things. And although some see it as "matrimony", others don't. Civil marriage, legal marriage, which is what we are discussing is simply a contract making two people legally kin and giving them certain rights and protections and benefits dealing with each other because they of their level of commitment.

Homosexuality is natural and normal. It simply is and there is nothing wrong with teaching children that. Relationships are not all about procreation. That is a belief, and nothing more. Opinion, based mainly on certain religious philosophy that has no place in laws.
 
I don't recall having to acquire government funds to get married. So no, it wouldn't cost you anything. Your math sucks and your understanding of the system is terrible.

I guess we will not see eye to eye on this one, till you think it through honestly. ;)
 
No, if you pay less taxes due to a deduction or exemption that money isn't negatively subsidized, it's simply not collected as taxes.

Nice we talked about it.
 
Chinese ministry of proletariat economics is not a good source of information

Do they have an English page?
 
you should try to find out where you got lost and you will see your post is simply incorrect.

6.) nature created it

11.) meaningless to the discussion, procreation has ZERO to do with a marriage contract



when you have more than already defeated strawmen let us know.

You are the one lost. Of course to a homosexual it is going to seem normal, and it doesn't bother me at all. To each his own. I can't make you see what you don't want to see. I explained it in simple enough terms why nature doesn't agree with you when you say "nature created it". Penis + vagina = normal/natural for simple obvious reasons. Explain how you think penis+penis was intended by nature?

Like I said, I really don't care. Go ahead and think it's normal, but I don't think it's appropriate to promote the idea to kids that it's normal for boys to blow eachother and be gay and get married.
 
1.)You are the one lost.
2.) Of course to a homosexual it is going to seem normal,
3.) and it doesn't bother me at all. To each his own.
4.) I can't make you see what you don't want to see.
5.) I explained it in simple enough terms why nature doesn't agree with you when you say "nature created it".
6.) Penis + vagina = normal/natural for simple obvious reasons.
7.) Explain how you think penis+penis was intended by nature?
8.) Like I said, I really don't care.
9.) Go ahead and think it's normal,
10.) but I don't think it's appropriate to promote the idea to kids that it's normal for boys to blow eachother and be gay and get married.

1.) not lost at all. i have fact you have lies and some meaningless opinions
2.) not homosexual and what it seems to me is meaningless im going based off of facts. You know medical committees, orgs and people with PhDs
3.) obviously it does or you wouldnt support discrimination
4.) true i will never see lies and fallacies and your opinion as facts because that would be stupid
5.) nature made it sorry again you lack of education on this topic doesnt change anything
6.) yes thats normal (numbers wise) for reproduction
7.) has no barring on the subject, we are not talking procreation. we are talking rights, laws, equality and discrimination. Nature is meaningless
8.) again obviously you do or you wouldnt support discrimination and tell others what they should call it. just let equality win then.
9.) has nothing to do with what i think, you seem to have trouble understanding this fact. what i think and what you think is meaningless to facts.
10.) thank you for this it further exposes how you really feel. who said anybody wants to "promote" boys blowing each other. Thank you this tells us all we need to know.

again when you have more than already defeated strawmen let us know.
 
1.) not lost at all. i have fact you have lies and some meaningless opinions
2.) not homosexual and what it seems to me is meaningless im going based off of facts. You know medical committees, orgs and people with PhDs
3.) obviously it does or you wouldnt support discrimination
4.) true i will never see lies and fallacies and your opinion as facts because that would be stupid
5.) nature made it sorry again you lack of education on this topic doesnt change anything
6.) yes thats normal (numbers wise) for reproduction
7.) has no barring on the subject, we are not talking procreation. we are talking rights, laws, equality and discrimination. Nature is meaningless
8.) again obviously you do or you wouldnt support discrimination and tell others what they should call it. just let equality win then.
9.) has nothing to do with what i think, you seem to have trouble understanding this fact. what i think and what you think is meaningless to facts.
10.) thank you for this it further exposes how you really feel. who said anybody wants to "promote" boys blowing each other. Thank you this tells us all we need to know.

again when you have more than already defeated strawmen let us know.

I'm not discriminating. I said they should be allowed SSM. I don't even have kids, but if I were gay, I would not feel right promoting my belief to children. Where are your facts? I haven't seen any, and besides this is common sense. It's not my fault if you think 2 penises together is what nature intended. I don't think it's fair to kids to tell them it's normal to see 2 men kissing in public. Let them decide.
 
1.)I'm not discriminating. I said they should be allowed SSM.
2.) I don't even have kids, but if I were gay, I would not feel right promoting my belief to children.
3.) Where are your facts? I haven't seen any,
4.) and besides this is common sense.
5.) It's not my fault if you think 2 penises together is what nature intended.
6.) I don't think it's fair to kids to tell them it's normal to see 2 men kissing in public.
7.) Let them decide.

1,) you said it shouldnt be called marriage, are you changing that stance now?
2.) you keep saying "promoting" who is "promoting" it what does that mean to you. how does one "promote" homosexuality
3.) your acknowledgment them doesnt mean anything they are facts none the lease
4.) i agree something your posts havent displayed on this topic at all
5.) weird never said that, feel free to make up more stuff thought its funny
6.) you are welcome to this opinion but its meaningless, i dont think its fair i have to see two ugly people kissing in public, so what
7.) they already do

again when you have more than already defeated strawmen let us know.
 
You are the one lost. Of course to a homosexual it is going to seem normal, and it doesn't bother me at all. To each his own. I can't make you see what you don't want to see. I explained it in simple enough terms why nature doesn't agree with you when you say "nature created it". Penis + vagina = normal/natural for simple obvious reasons. Explain how you think penis+penis was intended by nature?

Like I said, I really don't care. Go ahead and think it's normal, but I don't think it's appropriate to promote the idea to kids that it's normal for boys to blow eachother and be gay and get married.

It is normal in that it occurs naturally... even if they have their neurons crossed due to some variable, it is as normal as a boy dog humping a smaller boy dog or some person's leg. Dog boner + human leg are not intended by nature either.
 
I'm not discriminating. I said they should be allowed SSM. I don't even have kids, but if I were gay, I would not feel right promoting my belief to children. Where are your facts? I haven't seen any, and besides this is common sense. It's not my fault if you think 2 penises together is what nature intended. I don't think it's fair to kids to tell them it's normal to see 2 men kissing in public. Let them decide.

It is what in their brains... that is what you are missing.
 
I'm not discriminating. I said they should be allowed SSM. I don't even have kids, but if I were gay, I would not feel right promoting my belief to children. Where are your facts? I haven't seen any, and besides this is common sense. It's not my fault if you think 2 penises together is what nature intended. I don't think it's fair to kids to tell them it's normal to see 2 men kissing in public. Let them decide.

What belief? That being with someone of the same sex is okay if that is the sex/gender you are attracted to? What bull. I'm straight and I teach my children that such relationships are okay. It isn't a belief. It is called telling them the truth and not teaching them to be hateful or disrespectful to others because of who they are attracted to.

Nature didn't "intend" anything. Nature is not sentient. It simply is.
 
I'm not discriminating. I said they should be allowed SSM. I don't even have kids, but if I were gay, I would not feel right promoting my belief to children. Where are your facts? I haven't seen any, and besides this is common sense. It's not my fault if you think 2 penises together is what nature intended. I don't think it's fair to kids to tell them it's normal to see 2 men kissing in public. Let them decide.

Seem like all the right-wingers have this idea about what "nature intended". Nature doesn't "intend" anything. It's not a conscious entity to have intentions. What happens, happens. If it's detrimental to procreation, then it's selected out, eventually. Not because nature "made a mistake" or "didn't intend for that to happen", but because of the simple mechanics of it.

But that's all completely and totally irrelevant to the conversation, anyway. The only thing that's important is that American citizens have the right to marriage. If one American citizen has that right, then all American citizens have that right. That includes the ones that are gay.

If the right-wingers are successful in their drive to set the precedent that the government can carve out classes of Americans to whom certain rights don't apply, they'll be completely dumbfounded when they find themselves in half of the next dozen classes of people who've been relieved of specific rights. If they can say " gays don't have the right to get married" then they can say "fundimentalist right-wing Christians don't have the right to own guns", or whatever. No matter how many times you point out the precedent they're trying to set will some day be used against them, they won't get it until some day when it is used against them.
 
Seem like all the right-wingers have this idea about what "nature intended". Nature doesn't "intend" anything. It's not a conscious entity to have intentions. What happens, happens. If it's detrimental to procreation, then it's selected out, eventually. Not because nature "made a mistake" or "didn't intend for that to happen", but because of the simple mechanics of it.

But that's all completely and totally irrelevant to the conversation, anyway. The only thing that's important is that American citizens have the right to marriage. If one American citizen has that right, then all American citizens have that right. That includes the ones that are gay.

If the right-wingers are successful in their drive to set the precedent that the government can carve out classes of Americans to whom certain rights don't apply, they'll be completely dumbfounded when they find themselves in half of the next dozen classes of people who've been relieved of specific rights. If they can say " gays don't have the right to get married" then they can say "fundimentalist right-wing Christians don't have the right to own guns", or whatever. No matter how many times you point out the precedent they're trying to set will some day be used against them, they won't get it until some day when it is used against them.

Stop lumping all of those in one catagory together... not all right wingers or conservatives are represented by the retarded rantings of some of the posters here. It is stupid and pathetic generalizing that does far more harm than good.
 
Stop lumping all of those in one catagory together... not all right wingers or conservatives are represented by the retarded rantings of some of the posters here. It is stupid and pathetic generalizing that does far more harm than good.

There really aren't that many sane people left in the GOP. Almost the whole lot of them are living in an information bubble, only listening to, watching or reading rightwing propaganda sources that are filled with lies and disinformation. The handful of sane people left are losing control of the party, if they haven't lost it already.
 
Stop lumping all of those in one catagory together... not all right wingers or conservatives are represented by the retarded rantings of some of the posters here. It is stupid and pathetic generalizing that does far more harm than good.

I have to agree there are millions of right wing religious conservatives that are all for equal rights

now stereotypical thats not thier platform but they still support it none the less.
 
There really aren't that many sane people left in the GOP. Almost the whole lot of them are living in an information bubble, only listening to, watching or reading rightwing propaganda sources that are filled with lies and disinformation. The handful of sane people left are losing control of the party, if they haven't lost it already.

And how do you view the Left?
 
I have to agree there are millions of right wing religious conservatives that are all for equal rights

now stereotypical thats not thier platform but they still support it none the less.

I am a liberal conservative, not religious and am for Constitutional equal treatment for all... I know I don't represent the far Right, but the "far" of both sides have serious problems. Only seeing it in one, as Grendal has suggested, displays many of the same problems that he accuses others of.
 
Back
Top Bottom