• 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
No. I don't care about shellfish. I care about preserving the traditional American family, morals, ethics, honor, integrity, and the Word of God. I'm not bothering/picketing homosexuals, either.

Don't see anything about gay marriage that is an offense against morals, ethics, honor, or integrity. Matter of fact, by promoting committed, married relationships I'd argue that gay marriage supports those things.

If you think gay marriage is immoral, you should absolutely be out in the streets trying to put a stop to it. But I have yet to see a single coherent argument as to why it's immoral.
 
Last edited:
What else is it that we post on an internet forum... other than "opinion". The law changes... and the law you are claiming is only in a handful of states. Being direct and answering honestly isn't smugness - it's being direct. But I like it when you think I'm smug... I'll continue to be. And it so happens voters who elect the lawmakers agree with my view - especially in California. The judge, especially activist one's, will reflect what the lawmakers tell them to reflect. Laws also are not permanent. What is today, is gone tomorrow.


However... your little tantrums can be avoided if you just call gay unions something else. Then, I don't think the people or the lawmakers or the activist judges would have to be bothered. Stubborn and ignorant people who want their cake and eat it too usually get neither... which is what I'm pulling for in your case.

tantrums? you mean me laughing at you LOL
also i dont think you are being direct you are smug for being smug ;) direct doesnt bother me one bit

if you could see reality the people that dont want gay marriage are the ones that want their cake and it to

the people that want gay marriage want ALL people to be treated fairly and equaly and to not discriminate and EVERYBODY to be able to practice their own morals

your way is to discriminate and force your morals on EVERYBODY and they only get treated fairly and equally if they go by YOUR views LMAO

Ill be pulling for equality and being anti-discrimination LMAO
 
But I have yet to see a single coherent argument as to why it's immoral.

The Bible says so. Don't you know? That's the only argument we need! :roll:

Seriously... the Christian Dominionists think that God's law is perfectly logical and applicable to the rest of us.
 
tantrums? you mean me laughing at you LOL
also i dont think you are being direct you are smug for being smug ;) direct doesnt bother me one bit

if you could see reality the people that dont want gay marriage are the ones that want their cake and it to

the people that want gay marriage want ALL people to be treated fairly and equaly and to not discriminate and EVERYBODY to be able to practice their own morals

your way is to discriminate and force your morals on EVERYBODY and they only get treated fairly and equally if they go by YOUR views LMAO

Ill be pulling for equality and being anti-discrimination LMAO

Sure... call it whatever you want, just don't call it marriage. Glad I could be helpful.
 
We've been over this already, Ockham.

What you suggest is, indeed, "separate but equal".

Geese are separate but equal from Ducks because Ducks are not Geese... so be it. All I want is it to be called something other than marriage. You say that's separate but equal... fine. It's separate but equal. :shrug:
 
I think I'd rather see these questions answered: Is it right that marriage is a legal issue in the first place? Why should the government involve itself in the private lives of citizens? And why should married couples - gay or straight - have to pay less tax than unmarried people? Doesn't this discriminate across the board against unmarried people?
 
It would be interesting to see what percentage of this site is dedicated to debate on gay issues.
 
Geese are separate but equal from Ducks because Ducks are not Geese... so be it. All I want is it to be called something other than marriage. You say that's separate but equal... fine. It's separate but equal. :shrug:

And I want all legal unions currently termed "marraige" to be called something else. ALL.
 
Sure... call it whatever you want, just don't call it marriage. Glad I could be helpful.

you were, you admited that you are a hypocrite and want to discriminate thanks but I already knew that :)

sorry I choose not to discriminate against my fellow americans
 
I think I'd rather see these questions answered: 1)Is it right that marriage is a legal issue in the first place? Why should the government involve itself in the private lives of citizens? 2.)And why should married couples - gay or straight - have to pay less tax than unmarried people? 3.)Doesn't this discriminate across the board against unmarried people?


1 yes that precedence has already been sent
2 irrelevant to the debate at hand thats a different subject
3 no because single is ONE group whether your gay straight black white etc
 
Last edited:
you were, you admited that you are a hypocrite and want to discriminate thanks but I already knew that :)

sorry I choose not to discriminate against my fellow americans

I'm a hypocrite why? And this has nothing to do with discrimination... you want to make it about that... that's your problem. I just want another word.
 
I'm a hypocrite why? And this has nothing to do with discrimination... you want to make it about that... that's your problem. I just want another word.

thats easy because you just admitted that you want it your way and forget eveyone else, you dont want EVERYONE to get what they want you want everyone to get what YOU want = hypocrite

yes it is about discrimination. You want to discriminate against gay couples plain and simple. A new word is not needed the word marriages already applies.
 
What else is it that we post on an internet forum... other than "opinion". The law changes... and the law you are claiming is only in a handful of states. Being direct and answering honestly isn't smugness - it's being direct. But I like it when you think I'm smug... I'll continue to be. And it so happens voters who elect the lawmakers agree with my view - especially in California. The judge, especially activist one's, will reflect what the lawmakers tell them to reflect. Laws also are not permanent. What is today, is gone tomorrow.


However... your little tantrums can be avoided if you just call gay unions something else. Then, I don't think the people or the lawmakers or the activist judges would have to be bothered. Stubborn and ignorant people who want their cake and eat it too usually get neither... which is what I'm pulling for in your case.

Actually, the voters who elect the officials voted FOR gay marriage (Schwarzenegger vetoed because there was a case in the courts, saying that the courts needed to define the constiutionality of the law). Only in direct democracy (mob ideaology) was it overturned.

Direct Democracy (NOT in the Constitution anywhere) is awful. It attracts special interest groups (like the Mormon Church) to fund campaigns and it leads to lies (like schools would be forced to teach about gay marriage). And it leads to a state where people want all the benefits they can get from government without paying for it.
 
1 yes that precedence has already been sent
2 irrelevant to the debate at hand thats a different subject
3 no because single is ONE group whether your gay straight black white etc

1. So? That doesn't mean it shouldn't be questioned.
2. It's not irrelevant - one of the main arguments of the pro-gay marriage people is that having straight-only marriages discriminates against gay couples partly because they can't receive the same tax breaks as straight couples.
3. I'm not sure what you mean here, you'll have to go into more detail.
 
1. So? That doesn't mean it shouldn't be questioned.
2. It's not irrelevant - one of the main arguments of the pro-gay marriage people is that having straight-only marriages discriminates against gay couples partly because they can't receive the same tax breaks as straight couples.
3. I'm not sure what you mean here, you'll have to go into more detail.

1.) question it all you want its a different debate, doesnt change anything for this debate.
2.) yes it is because with or without the tax breaks etc it has to be EQUAL, so if straights get puppy dogs, gays get them to, if its taxes then its taxes, if its rights to property then its that or a free life time supply of love lube LOL it doesnt matter and is irralvant because what ever it is it needs to be EQUAL and that is where the discrimination comes into play, its currently NOT equal
3.) singles are a group and basically treated the same, can a gay guy and a straight guy get the same tax breaks? YES
 
1.) question it all you want its a different debate, doesnt change anything for this debate.
2.) yes it is because with or without the tax breaks etc it has to be EQUAL, so if straights get puppy dogs, gays get them to, if its taxes then its taxes, if its rights to property then its that or a free life time supply of love lube LOL it doesnt matter and is irralvant because what ever it is it needs to be EQUAL and that is where the discrimination comes into play, its currently NOT equal
3.) singles are a group and basically treated the same, can a gay guy and a straight guy get the same tax breaks? YES

1. It is part of the same debate. It's why I voted 'no' in your poll.
2. Yes but my point is is that this discriminates against non-married people. It's not equality at all, it's inequality.
3. Yes, but why should they get tax breaks by virtue of being married?
 
thats easy because you just admitted that you want it your way and forget eveyone else, you dont want EVERYONE to get what they want you want everyone to get what YOU want = hypocrite

Ah... you don't know what "hypocrite" means. Now it makes sense.

yes it is about discrimination. You want to discriminate against gay couples plain and simple. A new word is not needed the word marriages already applies.
So because I don't want the word "marriage" used describing gay couples but agree they should be allowed to have some sort of union and have full rights/priveledges just like a heterosexual couple, I'm discrminating against them... you also don't know what the word "discrimination" means either. That and you're insanely ignorant of the world and blinded by... i dunno... some sort of brainwashing.

Either way... here's my final word.... use a "different word". The rest is all fine. Let me know when you beccome less boring... oh and can use a dictonary. ta ta.
 
1. It is part of the same debate. It's why I voted 'no' in your poll.
2. Yes but my point is is that this discriminates against non-married people. It's not equality at all, it's inequality.
3. Yes, but why should they get tax breaks by virtue of being married?

1.) no its not it has no bearing LMAO currently marriage is a law issue DONE, the goverments involvemtn is another debate thats just common sense
2.) if thats the way you feel again thats another debate start a thread called should singles get the same tax breaks has couples, again no bearing
3.) doesnt matter to this debate see reason 2, like i said start a new thread asking that LMAO
 
Ah... you don't know what "hypocrite" means. Now it makes sense.
I know exactly what it means and you are one and thats a fact you already proved it :)


So because I don't want the word "marriage" used describing gay couples but agree they should be allowed to have some sort of union and have full rights/priveledges just like a heterosexual couple, I'm discrminating against them... you also don't know what the word "discrimination" means either. That and you're insanely ignorant of the world and blinded by... i dunno... some sort of brainwashing.

Either way... here's my final word.... use a "different word". The rest is all fine. Let me know when you become less boring... oh and can use a dictonary. ta ta.

I clearly understand the word discrimination too and this is going to be fun, here a fun humor example i like to use

Congrats Mr. Obama! you won! uhm listen, see the thing is we arent going to call you the President, see well, uhm , you are half black and we just cant call you THE PRESIDENT, we are going to call you aaaaaah . . . . uhm . . . The CEO if the United States of AMerica, yeah thats it.

Now mind you'll have the same "full rights/privileges" and powers and decesions to make has the president but we just cant call it that.

Oh yeah an by the way if you dont win next term and a whote guy wins we're gonna go back to calling him the president!

LMAO
yep you are right nooooooooooooooo discrimination there just because it has a different name. hahahahaha
now tell me that cool part about ignorance and brain washing again??? :laughat:
attempts at insults shows your desperation
now clean off your face, theres egg on it :D
 
The word of god?
All of this was written by man, and at that time, man was awash in fear and ignorance.
Today, he is less so.
5,000 years ago, the homosexual fell by the wayside (or was pushed), today, he has achieved some equality.
Or, do you wish to return to the days of 5K years ago ?
The Bible is the living Word of God. Nothing has changed.

Exactly where did Christ talk about gays?
All throughout the Bible God says homosexuality is an abomination. Homosexuals will not go to Heaven. LOTS of references.
Don't see anything about gay marriage that is an offense against morals, ethics, honor, or integrity. Matter of fact, by promoting committed, married relationships I'd argue that gay marriage supports those things.
If you think gay marriage is immoral, you should absolutely be out in the streets trying to put a stop to it. But I have yet to see a single coherent argument as to why it's immoral.
I, like God, believe that homosexuality is wrong. I have no interest in going out in the streets to protest. I have bigger fish to fry. It's immoral because God says marriage is between a man and a woman.
 
The Bible is the living Word of God. Nothing has changed.


All throughout the Bible God says homosexuality is an abomination. Homosexuals will not go to Heaven. LOTS of references.

I, like God, believe that homosexuality is wrong. I have no interest in going out in the streets to protest. I have bigger fish to fry. It's immoral because God says marriage is between a man and a woman.

I, like Jesus, believe in love, compassion and forgiveness. Where does the bible say "forgiveness of sins excludes homosexuality"?
 
Last edited:
I think I'd rather see these questions answered: Is it right that marriage is a legal issue in the first place? Why should the government involve itself in the private lives of citizens? And why should married couples - gay or straight - have to pay less tax than unmarried people? Doesn't this discriminate across the board against unmarried people?

Yes, it is right that this is a legal issue. There is more at stake than the private lives of citizens, as marriage is a vital social institution that forms the basis of families. Marriage is, and must be, encouraged at every level in society.

I, like God, believe that homosexuality is wrong. I have no interest in going out in the streets to protest. I have bigger fish to fry. It's immoral because God says marriage is between a man and a woman.

Like I said, no coherent arguments. Every other moral argument can be justified by more than "God says so", even concerning such matters as premarital sex and others that are typically considered to be strictly religious affairs. I will notice that you do not hold the same disdain for people who violate Jewish dietary laws, though they are mentioned in the same passages.
 
I think I'd rather see these questions answered: Is it right that marriage is a legal issue in the first place? Why should the government involve itself in the private lives of citizens? And why should married couples - gay or straight - have to pay less tax than unmarried people? Doesn't this discriminate across the board against unmarried people?

Exactly! What scares me is that now in America, our first step to getting equality in this was to go to the government, get on our knees, and beg. Nobody even considered why they were asking the government for a freedom that years ago did used to be equal in that it had nothing to do with government and everything to do with two people having a ceremony.
 
God says in His Word that homosexuality is an abomination. He says marriage is between a man and a woman. It's Adam and Eve; not Adam and Steve. If homosexuals want to spit in His face and get married, they will pay the consequences, not me. So I guess I really don't care what they do. I just don't support it.

Since you brought up Adam and Eve, how does God feel about incest?
 
Back
Top Bottom