• 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!

Same sex marriage: what is it really?

What is same sex marriage?


  • Total voters
    62
nope in your logic you clearly ignore how the majority doesnt always get its way ESPECIALLY when it comes to the constitution.

actually (theoretically) it does. a local simple majority is not enough to override a national supermajority; leaving the victory with the majority. so, for example, the state of (making this up) kentucky votes to ban gun ownership, puts the measure to a referendum, and it passes overwhelmingly. but obviously it get's overturned by SCOTUS. did the majority not get it's way? the majority did get it's way because the majority on this question was the Supermajority of Americans who say "no taking away people's right to bear arms".

good lord what planet are you on, all i said is that religion has in fact been used against those movements, interracial marriage, womens and minority rights.

yes. it was a stupid argument.

the reality is that all these things we are discussing (gender equality, individual rights, so forth) are rare and relatively new in the order of human society. they are the exception, not the rule.

wrong again, I claim you have hypocrisy because you want to force your religion on others AND because you say you want equality while denying it to gays.

equality before the law =/= equality of result. you are engaging in a fallacy of assumption here, a just-so argument.

more circle talking that says nothing, its discrimination and thats why its wrong for it to be unequal.

discrimination isn't wrong in and of itself. as has been pointed out here, we discriminate against all kinds of people and in all kinds of ways and for all kinds of reasons. you are arguing from the assumption that this particular discrimination is morally unjustifiable, which is fine, but let's not pretend it's a universally accepted precept (as you do).

I dont need them I got YOU, you were inaccurate with your blanket statements.

:lol: says the man who is tacitly admitting that he can't back his claim by proving a negative.

and I clearly answered, the answer is 100% NO if it involves STOPPING gay marriage. Next time quote the whole thing and it will contain the answer genius lol

lol no you didn't you stated a series of common beliefs lmao and then ttyfn you made a just so statement repeating your belief in a particular set of others motivation bff without answering the question rofl of whether or not you believed that it is possible for well-meaning individuals to come to differing conclusions on this issue lol. jeez. how old are you?

no thanks, not really worth my time

it would take about 1/5th of the time you will spend responding to this post at most. what you mean, i believe, is that you cant.

another dodge

:roll: project much?

good god thanks for the YES/NO answers and circle talking just like I said you would.

well as i pointed out, you weren't necessarily asking yes/no questions.

wow, just wow, so the majority of americans were for minority rights and womens rights when they passed them? link please what was the percentage.

yes they were. you do know this is the only way these things were put into law, right? 14th, 19th Amendment ringing any bells? Civil Rights Act of 1964? it passed the House 290-130 and it passed the Senate 71-29. that's what the math world calls a "majority".

not to mention I said either way pretend it wasnt, pretend 75% of america against it what your answer?

if there were no 14th Amendment, 19th Amendment, Civil Rights Act, so on and so forth, then obviously these people would not have full expression of their rights (which they would retain) and I would fight with them as my ancestors did. however, as far as our legal system would be concerned obviously the situation would be different, and the answer would be to change the legal system by convincing a majority (or, if necessary, supermajority) of my fellow citizens to do so.


see, whenever you say "dodge" i'm translating to "i have no answer to that".

again what a joke, atleat you told the truth about your answer and further showed your hypocrisy.

no hypocrisy here. there would only be that if i accepted your assumptions which i've tried to point out to you i don't; but you seem to have trouble really comprehending that.
 
you like reading your own words dont you?

:) you asked a question.

ok so we agree religion WAS used on the negative side of those movements thanks

certainly it was used. as was the Constitution.

also please save the use of religion for defense of marriage because its MEANINGLESS

actually as a voter I am free to use whatever rationale i like when i vote. If i wish to vote for all measures that start with consonants and against those that start with vowels, i am free to do so. as the voting records tend to make clear, religion has been anything but meaningless when it comes to the defining of marriage in modern America; even demographics as traditionally blue as African Americans tend to vote in favor of traditional marriage because they are also disproportionately religious.

but you will note i divided my answer into two parts. i would vote the way i would because of how my faith informs my view of humankind. the state should govern the way it should because the people told them to, and it has no authority other than that which they give it.

Societ wise, the religious definition is nothing more than an opinion.

as is your opinion limiting it to adults. it just so happens that both of those opinions are widely shared, and we as a society have woven those opinions into our law.

Lastly and this doesnt make it a worldly fact just going off of my life but everybody i know in my real life picks and choose what they want to use out of the good book. Now i am TOTALLY fine with that but once you try to use it for a defense or force it on others thats when they all instantly have egg on their face. Ill always laugh at a person that quotes Leviticus(among others) and only chooses PARTS of it to "obey" and cast judgment on others while violating numerous other parts.

:) for a Christian to do this would indeed be humorous. Paul spent no small amount of time telling Christians specifically to stop worrying about Levitcal law.
 
And a few hundred years ago, the definition of freedom excluded blacks, tradition isn't always a good thing, is it.

Show me a written definition of freedom that excluded blacks. Anyway, let's dump all tradition because you want to point out a single flaw. You call that an argument against tradition? What if someone decides today murder is not murder and blows your freaking head off? Well hey, tradition ain't everything, right? You will have to do better than that.
 
Show me a written definition of freedom that excluded blacks. Anyway, let's dump all tradition because you want to point out a single flaw. You call that an argument against tradition? What if someone decides today murder is not murder and blows your freaking head off? Well hey, tradition ain't everything, right? You will have to do better than that.

Murder violates another person's right to life. Allowing gays to marry members of the same sex doesn't violate another person's rights at all. Legal marriage is a contract. Religion does not own the word marriage. No one has a copyright on that particular word in fact. And religion has nothing to do with legal contract except that religious leaders are authorized to sign as "approvers" of marriages (if they are registered), along with a number of other people who aren't religious leaders. And there are even some religions and religious leaders who will, in fact, sign off on same sex marriages.

And allowing a group of people to marry does not force anyone to accept that group, nor does it change anyone's religious beliefs. Any religion that thinks that homosexuality and/or same sex marriages are wrong are completely free not to perform those ceremonies or even allow gays into their church if they so choose.

Laws are passed all the time that go against someone's religious beliefs. As long as those religions are not forced to accept any of those changes, there is no violation of freedom of religion.
 
Murder violates another person's right to life. Allowing gays to marry members of the same sex doesn't violate another person's rights at all. Legal marriage is a contract. Religion does not own the word marriage. No one has a copyright on that particular word in fact. And religion has nothing to do with legal contract except that religious leaders are authorized to sign as "approvers" of marriages (if they are registered), along with a number of other people who aren't religious leaders. And there are even some religions and religious leaders who will, in fact, sign off on same sex marriages.

And allowing a group of people to marry does not force anyone to accept that group, nor does it change anyone's religious beliefs. Any religion that thinks that homosexuality and/or same sex marriages are wrong are completely free not to perform those ceremonies or even allow gays into their church if they so choose.

Laws are passed all the time that go against someone's religious beliefs. As long as those religions are not forced to accept any of those changes, there is no violation of freedom of religion.

The whole reason for gay marriage is taxes then, not religion. Well tax laws regarding marriage were originally instituted to reward couples for raising children and giving them tax break for such.
 
The whole reason for gay marriage is taxes then, not religion. Well tax laws regarding marriage were originally instituted to reward couples for raising children and giving them tax break for such.

Wrong, it's for the rights and responsibilities that come with the legal contract of marriage.

Marriage Rights and Benefits - Free Legal Information - Nolo

Only two or three of those had anything to do with tax benefits. And some of those things cannot be given through a POA.
 
The whole reason for gay marriage is taxes then, not religion. Well tax laws regarding marriage were originally instituted to reward couples for raising children and giving them tax break for such.

And they shouldn't get it. I don't see why the rest of us have to subsidize other people's choices to have kids. Regardless, it doesn't matter. Gay couples can have kids, I have a good friend who is a lesbian and her and her wife just had a kid last year. And gay couples can also adopt. There are plenty of tax and contractual privilege granted by the Marriage License which same sex couples would like to access. We have no logical and just argument to stop them so long as the Marriage License exists.
 
actually (theoretically) it does. a local simple majority is not enough to override a national supermajority; leaving the victory with the majority. so, for example, the state of (making this up) kentucky votes to ban gun ownership, puts the measure to a referendum, and it passes overwhelmingly. but obviously it get's overturned by SCOTUS. did the majority not get it's way? the majority did get it's way because the majority on this question was the Supermajority of Americans who say "no taking away people's right to bear arms".

fact is the majority do not have to get their way no matter how you spin and that was the discussion. FACT
you believe what you want lol



yes. it was a stupid argument.

the reality is that all these things we are discussing (gender equality, individual rights, so forth) are rare and relatively new in the order of human society. they are the exception, not the rule.

I know your argument was stupid thanks for admitting it




equality before the law =/= equality of result. you are engaging in a fallacy of assumption here, a just-so argument.

wrong just you failing to acknowledge discrimination to feel better about your stance




discrimination isn't wrong in and of itself. as has been pointed out here, we discriminate against all kinds of people and in all kinds of ways and for all kinds of reasons. you are arguing from the assumption that this particular discrimination is morally unjustifiable, which is fine, but let's not pretend it's a universally accepted precept (as you do)..

more dishonest word games by you, morals have nothing to do with it as those are subjective nor have I even TRIED that argument. Thats you simply ASSUming again and making something up to argue against since you cant logical argue against the rest. This is about discrimination.



:lol: says the man who is tacitly admitting that he can't back his claim by proving a negative.

only by your imaginary standards, the negative is discrimination and thats the only negative I need, its wrong to discriminate in this fashion against my fellow Americans.




lol no you didn't you stated a series of common beliefs lmao and then ttyfn you made a just so statement repeating your belief in a particular set of others motivation bff without answering the question rofl of whether or not you believed that it is possible for well-meaning individuals to come to differing conclusions on this issue lol. jeez. how old are you?

Wow its pathetic how easy you end up with egg on your face and your foot in your mouth. Heres my quote "once you try and stop it NO in my opinion you aren't a well meaning american, you are an oppressor and discriminator."

stop, go back and read it again, then, wipe the egg off your face, AGAIN :D
tell me that cool part about age again?:lamo



it would take about 1/5th of the time you will spend responding to this post at most. what you mean, i believe, is that you cant.

no thanks anybody reading knows the truth, in fact you are STILL dodging



:roll: project much?

nope you are dodging



well as i pointed out, you weren't necessarily asking yes/no questions.

Not yes/no questioins? LMAO only to people that know the real answers exposes their hypocrisy, want to discriminate and shows their lack of logic.




yes they were. you do know this is the only way these things were put into law, right? 14th, 19th Amendment ringing any bells? Civil Rights Act of 1964? it passed the House 290-130 and it passed the Senate 71-29. that's what the math world calls a "majority".

I asked for the percentage of the AMERICAN PEOPLE. What the senate did and house means NOTHING to me or what I said.

The whole time ive been talking about the majority of the people and you keep playing semantics and playing around it.

Did interracial marriage become legal based on majority opinion? NOPE

So all your sarcasm is wasted because it only puts yet more egg on your face.
Like I said, I dont know about civil and womens rights but I do know about interracial marriage and the fact is the majority of people were AGAINST it.

Please stay on topic LMAO



if there were no 14th Amendment, 19th Amendment, Civil Rights Act, so on and so forth, then obviously these people would not have full expression of their rights (which they would retain) and I would fight with them as my ancestors did. however, as far as our legal system would be concerned obviously the situation would be different, and the answer would be to change the legal system by convincing a majority (or, if necessary, supermajority) of my fellow citizens to do so.

so your answer is NO you think it was WRONG to pass civil and women rights if the majority was against it.

thats all you had to say instead of talking around it LOL


see, whenever you say "dodge" i'm translating to "i have no answer to that".

of course YOU do, thats how delusion works but that fact remains you are dodging and I cant answer a dodge and/or no answer



no hypocrisy here. there would only be that if i accepted your assumptions which i've tried to point out to you i don't; but you seem to have trouble really comprehending that.

Your acceptance doesn't change reality. The fact that you say you want equal rights for all and then want to discriminate against gays makes you a hypocrite.

I guess the people that dont view women and minorities as equal arent hypocrites either right? They want equality for all but since they dont view them as equal its ok to discriminate.

I guess the racist arent really racist because they dont view blacks of a race of people they think of them as animals?

ooooooooh I get it now, that makes perfect logical sense <sarcasm>
LMAO what a joke, how are people this dishonest.
 
:) you asked a question.

yep that could have "truthfully" been answered in one sentence.

certainly it was used. as was the Constitution.
finally you admit the TRUTH thanks




actually as a voter I am free to use whatever rationale i like when i vote. If i wish to vote for all measures that start with consonants and against those that start with vowels, i am free to do so. as the voting records tend to make clear, religion has been anything but meaningless when it comes to the defining of marriage in modern America; even demographics as traditionally blue as African Americans tend to vote in favor of traditional marriage because they are also disproportionately religious.

yes you are FREE to do so and I agree just like i have stated in this thread and you told me thats not what you asked LMAO and again that is NOT the topic.

What I said is, it is meaningless because it has no business in law, thats my point, your religion (which seems to be mine) has no business in law because if I try to make laws JUST based off my religion then Im forcing my religion on others, especially in situtaion s like this where there is no victim.






as is your opinion limiting it to adults. it just so happens that both of those opinions are widely shared, and we as a society have woven those opinions into our law..

NO, wrong again my opinion is sound mind consenting adults, like all contracts.
again use all my views dont try and cherry pick



:) for a Christian to do this would indeed be humorous. Paul spent no small amount of time telling Christians specifically to stop worrying about Levitcal law.

That's funny many religious people and Christians included qoute it here everyday LMAO when this topic comes up.
Regardless when I see a person live the word to the T thats when ill stop laughing at them and take them serious IF they are trying to tell me how to live, Ill always take them serious if they are only telling themselves and theirs how to live just leave me out of it.
 
Ok cpwill Im done with your word games and you dancing around so Im getting back on topic and staying on topic.

Please tell me ONE sound, reasonable, logical, non-bias, non-selfish, non-arrogant, non-hypercritical, non anti-american reason to "Stop" gay marriage.

This is all Im interested in discussing
 
Gays can have civil unions, not marriage. Marriage is a husband and wife relationship. They are gender specific roles. To include a husband husband or wife wife relationship is to wrongfully classify a relationship as a marriage. Same sex marriage is a contortion of the truth and a reshaping of morality at a legal level.
 
Gays can have civil unions, not marriage. Marriage is a husband and wife relationship. They are gender specific roles. To include a husband husband or wife wife relationship is to wrongfully classify a relationship as a marriage. Same sex marriage is a contortion of the truth and a reshaping of morality at a legal level.

Civil Unions is discrimination.
With the supporting argument you provided, YOUR definition is nothing more than your opinion, one the law and websters doesnt share.

There is NO contortion of the truth in reality.
Law has it for man and women currently but that is discrimination, but law wise, there are no gender specific "roles", law wise "morality" isnt involved.

And morality is nothing than your subjective opinion. I think its immoral to discriminate based on sexuality so I could make your same statement.

Changing the law will be illuminating DISCRIMINATION not morality. Its none of your business or my business who two sound consenting adults marry.
 
Gays can have civil unions, not marriage. Marriage is a husband and wife relationship. They are gender specific roles. To include a husband husband or wife wife relationship is to wrongfully classify a relationship as a marriage. Same sex marriage is a contortion of the truth and a reshaping of morality at a legal level.

If civil unions are different from marriage, then this is an entirely unacceptable solution. If it is the same as marriage, then it is a stupid solution since there is no point in calling two of the same thing different names to appease a few people.

Husband and wife are typically defined by gender, but less and less so and it is not necessary.
 
The whole reason for gay marriage is taxes then, not religion. Well tax laws regarding marriage were originally instituted to reward couples for raising children and giving them tax break for such.

That is not nearly the whole reason. It isn't even the biggest reason.
 
That is not nearly the whole reason. It isn't even the biggest reason.

And even if it was, gays can raise children as well as straights, so either the point is moot, or it supports the GM position.
 
Ok cpwill Im done with your word games and you dancing around so Im getting back on topic and staying on topic.

Please tell me ONE sound, reasonable, logical, non-bias, non-selfish, non-arrogant, non-hypercritical, non anti-american reason to "Stop" gay marriage.

This is all Im interested in discussing

It discriminates against polygamists.
 
It discriminates against polygamists.

LMAO
we have been done this path and it is typical of you to just throw stuff out there instead of being honest to the debate.

I have no problem with polygamy as long as it fits what marriage(legal contract) is, consenting sound mind adults. If these are the type of polygamist you are referring to than by all means they can and should be included but, regardless that wouldnt be a good reason. If we have to chip away at discrimination piece by piece so be it, thats how the good fight is won, a battle at a time.:D
 
It discriminates against polygamists.

Which is entirely more permissable under the EPC than discriminating against Gender, which gay marriage bans discriminate against.
 

I bet you have an "LMAO" button on your keyboard :mrgreen:

we have been done this path and it is typical of you to just throw stuff out there instead of being honest to the debate.

Flame, against forum rules. Things like that are why I just play silly games in this forum. There's no point in attempting real debate...if there ever was.

I have no problem with....

I don't give a **** what you have a problem with and what you don't. You aren't real, you're just an anon in a debate forum.


If these are the type of polygamist you are referring to than by all means they can and should be included but, regardless that wouldnt be a good reason.

If the law is discriminatory, then it is unconstitutional.

If we have to chip away at discrimination piece by piece so be it, thats how the good fight is won, a battle at a time.

Oh so it's that you know your supporting a discriminatory law and you're just going to ignore it. Very good, so much for equality.
 
Which is entirely more permissable under the EPC than discriminating against Gender, which gay marriage bans discriminate against.

The law discriminates against sex, not gender. It's an important diference to keep in mide.

Anyway, no the law shouldn't discriminate against sex or marital status, but if it doesn't weed out the abuse then there's no point in difending anyone's marriage as everyone is ****ed anyway.
 
I bet you have an "LMAO" button on your keyboard :mrgreen:



Flame, against forum rules. Things like that are why I just play silly games in this forum. There's no point in attempting real debate...if there ever was.



I don't give a **** what you have a problem with and what you don't. You aren't real, you're just an anon in a debate forum.




If the law is discriminatory, then it is unconstitutional.



Oh so it's that you know your supporting a discriminatory law and you're just going to ignore it. Very good, so much for equality.

Oh I forgot....LMAO :2wave:
 
The law discriminates against sex, not gender. It's an important diference to keep in mide.

I would love to hear the difference you believe there is between "sex" and "gender", unless you're meaning "sex" as something other than defining if someone is male or female and are talking more about the carnal act.
 
I bet you have an "LMAO" button on your keyboard :mrgreen:

if i did, id have a couple because one would have your name on it. All you BS and playing games antics aside, you are at times very funny. :)



Flame, against forum rules. Things like that are why I just play silly games in this forum. There's no point in attempting real debate...if there ever was.

if you say so ;)



I don't give a **** what you have a problem with and what you don't. You aren't real, you're just an anon in a debate forum.

ok then you could always note reply :D




If the law is discriminatory, then it is unconstitutional.

agreed and this is eventually what will come to pass just like other discriminations




Oh so it's that you know your supporting a discriminatory law and you're just going to ignore it. Very good, so much for equality.

what type of playing games answer is this?
what discrimination am i "supporting" lol
 
Back
Top Bottom