• 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
Blackdog said:
Yes it will, by allowing it.
Click to expand...

And you have proof of this? Other than some vague sense of "morality" fueled by your personal interpretation of your god?
 
Kelzie said:
It's only morally wrong because of your religion. Which isn't even a little important to me.
Click to expand...

It's not about you, it's about what I think and feel etc.
 
Blackdog said:
It's not about you, it's about what I think and feel etc.
Click to expand...

No, it's about respecting the rights and liberties of the individual and proper roles of government.
 
Blackdog said:
It's not about you, it's about what I think and feel etc.
Click to expand...

You can think and feel whatever you want. I personally think you are morally inferior to me, but apparently you're allowed to breathe the same air. :shrug:
 
Ikari said:
And you have proof of this? Other than some vague sense of "morality" fueled by your personal interpretation of your god?
Click to expand...

Nothing "vague" about how I feel. Yes I have seen plenty of proof.
 
Kelzie said:
You can think and feel whatever you want. I personally think you are morally inferior to me, but apparently you're allowed to breathe the same air. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Thats great, you just hold on to that air of "moral superiority" it makes you a much better person.
 
Blackdog said:
Thats great, you just hold on to that air of "moral superiority" it makes you a much better person.
Click to expand...

So your morals are the only ones that matter?
 
Ikari said:
No, it's about respecting the rights and liberties of the individual and proper roles of government.
Click to expand...

And as I have pointed out we have different views on what role the government and individual play. Neither is superior to the other.
 
Kelzie said:
So your morals are the only ones that matter?
Click to expand...

To me? Of course. Why would your moral code or ethics be my concern? I do not expect you to be overly concerned with mine either.
 
Blackdog said:
You mite as well ask me to explain why I believe in God. All I can say is because I see it as just one more immoral act trying to gain social acceptance. Hell, we have people now saying incest is OK. Just look back at a few of the threads.
Click to expand...

I'm of a libertarian mindset and I believe in God, and yet I do not find anything in the Bible which would lead me to believe that God would be against same sex marriage. The arguments against homosexuality were Man's law, not God's law. But of course I have my interpretation and you have yours. I do not put the Bible above God because to do so would be to have another god before God. That aside, what right do you have to impose your particular interpretation of what you believe the Bible says is moral and immoral? And at what point does reason step in and you ask yourself what harm does homosexuality really cause to society as compared to other activities like smoking?

I will not support a redefining of marriage to mean gay couples, period.
Click to expand...

Technically, marriage has been redefined numerous times in history. Currently, the definition you support is that an individual can marry as many people of the opposite sex as they want as long as they are married to only one person at a time. Jesus Christ would most definitely not support the serial monogamy definition of marriage that our country currently embraces. And yet I do not see you striving against that definition of marriage, seeking to outlaw divorce and punish adulterers, so I cannot be convinced that you are motivated by religion. To the contrary, I think you are motivated by an animosity toward what you perceive as the sin of homosexuality, and you have no such animosity towards the sins of divorce or adultery.
 
Blackdog said:
To me? Of course. Why would your moral code or ethics be my concern? I do not expect you to be overly concerned with mine either.
Click to expand...

Because you are expecting national policy should follow your moral code.
 
Kelzie said:
Because you are expecting national policy should follow your moral code.
Click to expand...

As should anyone who cares about the society to which they contribute.
 
Blackdog said:
Nothing "vague" about how I feel. Yes I have seen plenty of proof.
Click to expand...

Let's see it. How are we going to degrade morality by allowing gay people (who already exist) to be allowed their right to contract? Typically when one wants to use government force against the rights of another, they have to demonstrate proof that the person has infringed upon the rights of others. Do you have any of this proof? Or is this all made up fantasy of your god and the way you'd want things to be and your desire to subject us all to your rules and your definition of "morality"?
 
CriticalThought said:
I'm of a libertarian mindset and I believe in God, and yet I do not find anything in the Bible which would lead me to believe that God would be against same sex marriage. The arguments against homosexuality were Man's law, not God's law. But of course I have my interpretation and you have yours. I do not put the Bible above God because to do so would be to have another god before God. That aside, what right do you have to impose your particular interpretation of what you believe the Bible says is moral and immoral? And at what point does reason step in and you ask yourself what harm does homosexuality really cause to society as compared to other activities like smoking?



Technically, marriage has been redefined numerous times in history. Currently, the definition you support is that an individual can marry as many people of the opposite sex as they want as long as they are married to only one person at a time. Jesus Christ would most definitely not support the serial monogamy definition of marriage that our country currently embraces. And yet I do not see you striving against that definition of marriage, seeking to outlaw divorce and punish adulterers, so I cannot be convinced that you are motivated by religion. To the contrary, I think you are motivated by an animosity toward what you perceive as the sin of homosexuality, and you have no such animosity towards the sins of divorce or adultery.
Click to expand...

This is a good post and deserves a response. I promise I will get back to it shortly.
 
Blackdog said:
As should anyone who cares about the society to which they contribute.
Click to expand...

Hardly. There are many things I am opposed to morally. Abortion, indefility, teenagers dressing like hookers...I don't think any of those should be controlled by laws in our society though.
 
Blackdog said:
And as I have pointed out we have different views on what role the government and individual play. Neither is superior to the other.
Click to expand...

Yet you wish to subject us to your definitions through the use of government force, so you must be thinking that yours is superior and thus necessitates implementation through government. In the end, my method doesn't produce harm. No one's rights are infringed upon. No one will be forced to gay marry or change their opinion on what marriage should be. Yours innately infringes upon the rights of others with no proof what so ever other than your superiority complex of thinking your morals are the right morals and the ones government should use force to implement over the rest of us.
 
Ikari said:
Let's see it. How are we going to degrade morality by allowing gay people (who already exist) to be allowed their right to contract? Typically when one wants to use government force against the rights of another, they have to demonstrate proof that the person has infringed upon the rights of others. Do you have any of this proof? Or is this all made up fantasy of your god and the way you'd want things to be and your desire to subject us all to your rules and your definition of "morality"?
Click to expand...

I have explained it many times on this forum and I am not going to go back and do it again. No offense, just to much work.

As for the rest, you can think what you like. In the end it changes nothing and I will continue to follow my desires etc. As I said I don't really care as much about the rights of the individual, I care far more for the society I live in and again contribute to.
 
Ikari said:
Yet you wish to subject us to your definitions through the use of government force, so you must be thinking that yours is superior and thus necessitates implementation through government. In the end, my method doesn't produce harm. No one's rights are infringed upon. No one will be forced to gay marry or change their opinion on what marriage should be. Yours innately infringes upon the rights of others with no proof what so ever other than your superiority complex of thinking your morals are the right morals and the ones government should use force to implement over the rest of us.
Click to expand...

Please you are just parroting what you have already said Ikari, and it still does not mean anything more than it did.
 
Kelzie said:
Hardly. There are many things I am opposed to morally. Abortion, indefility, teenagers dressing like hookers...I don't think any of those should be controlled by laws in our society though.
Click to expand...

That's good that you think for yourself. Don't expect me to think the same way you do or accept the same things. We are all different, get used to it.
 
Blackdog said:
I have explained it many times on this forum and I am not going to go back and do it again. No offense, just to much work.

As for the rest, you can think what you like. In the end it changes nothing and I will continue to follow my desires etc. As I said I don't really care as much about the rights of the individual, I care far more for the society I live in and again contribute to.
Click to expand...

The ol' "common good" argument. Ranks right up there with the "if you're not doing anything wrong...." argument.
 
Blackdog said:
Please you are just parroting what you have already said Ikari, and it still does not mean anything more than it did.
Click to expand...

It just means that you can't actually answer any of the direct questions and all you can do is deflect.
 
Blackdog said:
That's good that you think for yourself. Don't expect me to think the same way you do or accept the same things. We are all different, get used to it.
Click to expand...

We are all different and YOU should get used to it. We're not the ones looking to whitewash society.
 
Ikari said:
It just means that you can't actually answer any of the direct questions and all you can do is deflect.
Click to expand...

That is not true and you know it. You have said the same things over and over. Nothing has changed but your wording.
 
Ikari said:
We are all different and YOU should get used to it. We're not the ones looking to whitewash society.
Click to expand...

I am, but I also am not afraid to stand up for what I believe even if you and others feel "it's none of my business" is a good excuse. :lol:
 
Blackdog said:
That is not true and you know it. You have said the same things over and over. Nothing has changed but your wording.
Click to expand...

Then how about instead of all these deflections you keep throwing around, you actually back up what you're saying. I have. What I propose does not infringe upon the rights of anyone, in fact it recognizes and respects the rights of others. So you want to talk big and say it's not true. Then prove it. I'm waiting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom