• 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!

To those who oppose gay marriage on the grounds...

Dutch said:
I have nothing against homosexuals. I've offered to compromise to whit; let the individual states decide whether or not gays can be married. Let civil unions convey all the "possitives" accorded to marriage. All I ask for in return is............nothing.
Click to expand...

Oh how nice. You'll infringe upon someone's right to contract, and ask nothing in return. How noble of you. Why I think we're seeing another Mother Teresa here! He doesn't want anything but to infringe upon the individual's right to contract.

Dutch said:
It is you that is hyper partisan. It is you that refuses to compromise in any form. It is you that can only have it..........one way, yours. You sir, occupy the position of bigot. You seem very hostile to traditional western european cultural mores.
Click to expand...

Nice try to turn it around, but you have to make coherent arguments not based on your biased assumptions. I am obviously not hostile to traditional western european cultures. I am only hostile against that which infringes upon the rights and liberties of the individual. That's it. I always argue by the rights of the individual.

Dutch said:
It is you that is hostile to fully half of the united states citizens. From my perspective it is you that is bigoted. It is you that has absolutely no concern for the concerns of my fellows. Come to think of it "my fellows" would include black christians and most of the latino culture which is also traditional. Shouldn't you have at least some concern for the feelings and needs of members of the black, that includes mr obama, and latino communities at the very least?
Click to expand...

HAHAHAHAHAHA. What a weak and dishonest argument.
 
roguenuke said:
Since there are actually identifiable problems with incest and there are even states that are legally allowed to not recognize some of those marriages because they have laws against those couples sleeping together without limits, then it is logical that cousins marrying who aren't legally able to procreate should have been very likely to be included in a law that was designed to deny other couples who couldn't procreate federal recognition of legal marriage.
Click to expand...

Again that is like saying since you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, the 1st Amendment is not about free speech. Your argument with incest as an example fails.

roguenuke said:
If a law (DOMA) is said to be in place to limit couples (same sex) for a specific reason (inability to procreate, not actually in the act, but the act has been defended for that reason many times, even by Obama), then it should hold that other couples who fall within that reason (in this case, first cousins in states where they couldn't have legally married if not for certain specific exceptions that they cannot procreate) should fall under that same rule.
Click to expand...

I agree. Incest is still a bad example as it is illegal for more than just breeding.
 
Ikari said:
I didn't call you a bigot because you didn't follow the democratic party line. More hyperpartisan crap by non-thinking people. I said that people who typically use the procreation defense are actually bigots against homosexuals. This is because the procreation argument is fundamentally flawed and illogical. The only reason to hold onto illogical arguments is to act against a certain group; in this case homosexuals. Now maybe if you championed a proper argument it would not appear that you simply didn't like homosexuals.
Click to expand...

Let me see if I understand your point. I'm non-thinking because I'm not a secular humanist and looking at marriage from a traditional cultural perspective is illogical. .....and we cannot forge a compromise by either full on civil unions or allowing states to decided the issue based on what it's peoples want simply because. Good to know you're not bigoted in any way. :confused:
 
Last edited:
Dutch said:
Let me see if I understand your point. I'm non-thinking because I'm not a secular humanist and looking at marriage from a traditional cultural perspective is illogical. .....and we cannot forge a compromise by either full on civil unions or allowing states to decided the issue based on what it's peoples want simply because. Good to know you're not bigoted in any way. :confused:
Click to expand...

No, you're non-thinking because you use flawed logic to argue against the rights of others. And your rhetoric is nothing more than that of a hyperpartisan. See here how you try to make everything into something? Oh I'm after you because you're not a secular humanist. Can you not see the illogical nature of that statement? First off, you make it on no proof. It's just a knee jerk reaction. And the deflect is pretty sickening. Again, it's not because you are for traditional cultural perspectives. It's because you've used a completely invalid argument to excuse government force against the rights of others. That's what this is about. Not what side of the isle you sit on, but they quality of argument.

The Marriage License is a government issued and recognized contract. So long as that remains true, you have no just reason to infringe upon the rights of others by preventing other couples from engaging in the contract. That's all there is. There's no D or R, no left or right. None of this other crap you're trying to insert as deflection. There is merely the rights and liberties of the individual and those whom defend them and those whom attack them. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
Ikari said:
Oh how nice. You'll infringe upon someone's right to contract, and ask nothing in return. How noble of you. Why I think we're seeing another Mother Teresa here! He doesn't want anything but to infringe upon the individual's right to contract.
Click to expand...

Being willing to compromise is nice. Perhaps you should consider it sometime. :mrgreen:


Nice try to turn it around, but you have to make coherent arguments not based on your biased assumptions. I am obviously not hostile to traditional western european cultures. I am only hostile against that which infringes upon the rights and liberties of the individual. That's it. I always argue by the rights of the individual.
Click to expand...

You mean except for traditional marriage and it's intended purposes? :confused:


HAHAHAHAHAHA. What a weak and dishonest argument.
Click to expand...

Unless, of course, you believe in yet another product of western european culture..........democracy.........and the classical liberal belief that the government should represent the will of the people, not the marxist/socialist belief that the government should simply exercise control over the populace............for their own good. ;)
 
Dutch said:
Being willing to compromise is nice. Perhaps you should consider it sometime. :mrgreen:

You mean except for traditional marriage and it's intended purposes? :confused:

Unless, of course, you believe in yet another product of western european culture..........democracy.........and the classical liberal belief that the government should represent the will of the people, not the marxist/socialist belief that the government should simply exercise control over the populace............for their own good. ;)
Click to expand...

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.-Benjamin Franklin. We're not a democracy for many reasons, but one of the more important is to protect the minorities from the tyranny of the majority.
 
Blackdog said:
Again that is like saying since you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, the 1st Amendment is not about free speech. Your argument with incest as an example fails.



I agree. Incest is still a bad example as it is illegal for more than just breeding.
Click to expand...

Actually, the main reason that cousins aren't allowed to marry/be in relationships is a very low chance of birth defects. There are actually many states that have no restrictions on first cousins getting married. There are people who consider such relationships to be wrong, but that is not the main argument used to defend laws that make such relations illegal.
 
Dutch said:
Being willing to compromise is nice. Perhaps you should consider it sometime. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

I do not compromise on rights. Rights are fundamental and absolute.

Dutch said:
You mean except for traditional marriage and it's intended purposes? :confused:
Click to expand...

Don't be stupid. I'm not against "traditional marriage and it's intended purpose" because it's a "traditional western european culture" like you tried to claim before. Try to keep up with your own illogical and unproven statements. I'm against the use of government force on the rights and liberties of the individual. If one of your "traditional western european culture" issues comes into conflict with that, then I'll be on whatever side proliferates the rights and liberties of the individual. It's not because I'm "hostile against traditional western european culture", but rather that I wish to defend and proliferate our rights and liberties. You're trying to assess meaning to coincidence to advance your partisan arguments which have nothing to do with reality or logic. These are just your knee jerk reactions and attempts to deflect away from the real issue which is your "procreation" argument is crap and doesn't hold water.

Dutch said:
Unless, of course, you believe in yet another product of western european culture..........democracy.........and the classical liberal belief that the government should represent the will of the people, not the marxist/socialist belief that the government should simply exercise control over the populace............for their own good. ;)
Click to expand...

What stupidity. Democracy in and of itself is not a good thing. Pure Democracy is mob rule, there's no protection of rights. A Republic is what I believe in, one founded on laws rooted in the rights and liberties of the individual. In essence, the founding ideals of our country. Government should represent the will of the people, less the will of the people is to infringe upon the rights of the minority. The will of the People can only be followed so long as it does not infringe upon the rights and liberties of others. If it attempts to do so, government is there to stop it. Government's main duty is to protect and proliferate the rights and liberties of the individual.
 
Ikari said:
No, you're non-thinking because you use flawed logic to argue against the rights of others. And your rhetoric is nothing more than that of a hyperpartisan.
Click to expand...


You mean, unlike yourself? :confused:

See here how you try to make everything into something? Oh I'm after you because you're not a secular humanist. Can you not see the illogical nature of that statement? First off, you make it on no proof. It's just a knee jerk reaction. And the deflect is pretty sickening. Again, it's not because you are for traditional cultural perspectives. It's because you've used a completely invalid argument to excuse government force against the rights of others. That's what this is about. Not what side of the isle you sit on, but they quality of argument.
Click to expand...

Certainly not. I offered compromise in allowing individual states to decide the issue for themselves. That isn't the force of government, that's called the will of the people. I believe the people should decide these issues, not you, not me.


The Marriage License is a government issued and recognized contract. So long as that remains true, you have no just reason to infringe upon the rights of others by preventing other couples from engaging in the contract. That's all there is. There's no D or R, no left or right. None of this other crap you're trying to insert as deflection. There is merely the rights and liberties of the individual and those whom defend them and those whom attack them. Nothing more, nothing less.
Click to expand...

I disagree. An institition that predated the us constitution by several thousand years isn't just a contract. It's more than that, it's always been more than that. When I married, I married for life. When we conceived my son it had nothing to do with the government, the lawyers, or secular humanists like yourself. It was something far older, far more important than democratic party politics. It was for a reason far older than any of that crap.
 
Dutch said:
You mean, unlike yourself? :confused:
Click to expand...

Exactly. I have arrived at my position through contemplation of the rights of the individual, proper place of government, and the effects of instituting the system into society. That's the formation of proper opinion. Research and logic.

Dutch said:
Certainly not. I offered compromise in allowing individual states to decide the issue for themselves. That isn't the force of government, that's called the will of the people. I believe the people should decide these issues, not you, not me.
Click to expand...

The people are free to decide these issues so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others in the process.

Dutch said:
I disagree. An institition that predated the us constitution by several thousand years isn't just a contract. It's more than that, it's always been more than that. When I married, I married for life. When we conceived my son it had nothing to do with the government, the lawyers, or secular humanists like yourself. It was something far older, far more important than democratic party politics. It was for a reason far older than any of that crap.
Click to expand...

And the government usurped it. Sorry. You want to rally for preserving some concept of tradidtional marriage, it's not gay marriage you should be pissed at and try to remove. It's the Marriage License you should by rallying against, that's what destroyed your "traditional marriage" and made it a tool of the State. You've misplaced your anger. But as it stands, the Marriage License is a government issued and recognized contract. Given the right to contract, there is no legitimate and just reason by which one can argue that homosexuals should be forbidden from entering into said contract. You don't like it being "just a contract", you have to remove it from the government sphere.
 
Ikari said:
I do not compromise on rights. Rights are fundamental and absolute.
Click to expand...

Would that be rights, politics, or whims you are refering to?


Don't be stupid. I'm not against "traditional marriage and it's intended purpose" because it's a "traditional western european culture" like you tried to claim before. Try to keep up with your own illogical and unproven statements. I'm against the use of government force on the rights and liberties of the individual. If one of your "traditional western european culture" issues comes into conflict with that, then I'll be on whatever side proliferates the rights and liberties of the individual. It's not because I'm "hostile against traditional western european culture", but rather that I wish to defend and proliferate our rights and liberties. You're trying to assess meaning to coincidence to advance your partisan arguments which have nothing to do with reality or logic. These are just your knee jerk reactions and attempts to deflect away from the real issue which is your "procreation" argument is crap and doesn't hold water.
Click to expand...

So, now I'm both bigoted and stupid simply because I don't agree with your political opinion. And to think some people maintain american liberals/leftists are intolerant of other people's views. Tsk, tsk. :shock:


What stupidity. Democracy in and of itself is not a good thing. Pure Democracy is mob rule, there's no protection of rights. A Republic is what I believe in, one founded on laws rooted in the rights and liberties of the individual. In essence, the founding ideals of our country. Government should represent the will of the people, less the will of the people is to infringe upon the rights of the minority. The will of the People can only be followed so long as it does not infringe upon the rights and liberties of others. If it attempts to do so, government is there to stop it. Government's main duty is to protect and proliferate the rights and liberties of the individual.
Click to expand...

Ahhh, and here we have the meat of it. I understand your position all too well. Democracy and it's penchant for the common man to express their views is.........bad. Socialism with it's penchant for "helping" the common man by restraining his inherently bad nature by his "betters" is much more preferable. Especially if democracy gets in the way of rewarding a valued demographic for thier monies and votes.

You see, I understand ya'll all too well. I just reject your position. Have a nice day. Merry christmas. :mrgreen:
 
Ikari said:
Exactly. I have arrived at my position through contemplation of the rights of the individual, proper place of government, and the effects of instituting the system into society. That's the formation of proper opinion. Research and logic.
Click to expand...

I've heard this argument before, we're logical. You are not........because you don't agree with me. I have another word for it, arrogance.

The people are free to decide these issues so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others in the process.
Click to expand...


Changing the institution of marriage, is an infringement upon those who posses traditional cultures. Again, you need to understand, this is an issue of great importance to........rich white folk. Among many of the rest of us, christian black, latinos, and the rest of us poor whites, it simply isn't. Perhaps you have been too good at identity politics.


And the government usurped it. Sorry. You want to rally for preserving some concept of tradidtional marriage, it's not gay marriage you should be pissed at and try to remove. It's the Marriage License you should by rallying against, that's what destroyed your "traditional marriage" and made it a tool of the State. You've misplaced your anger. But as it stands, the Marriage License is a government issued and recognized contract. Given the right to contract, there is no legitimate and just reason by which one can argue that homosexuals should be forbidden from entering into said contract. You don't like it being "just a contract", you have to remove it from the government sphere.
Click to expand...

Only for you folks. For the rest of us it's something much more important.
 
Dutch said:
Would that be rights, politics, or whims you are refering to?
Click to expand...

Rights

Dutch said:
So, now I'm both bigoted and stupid simply because I don't agree with your political opinion. And to think some people maintain american liberals/leftists are intolerant of other people's views. Tsk, tsk. :shock:
Click to expand...

Again, no. Stop with the deflection. As I said, the stupidity is the arguments you are trying to put forth. They have no logical or rational defense. All you do in retort is call people "liberals" "leftist" "socialist" and any other partisan hack term you can happen to type out at the time. That's it. There's no meat to the argument. It's stupidity and nothing more. So stop. Make a proper argument without resorting to your hyperpartisan mud slinging.

Dutch said:
Ahhh, and here we have the meat of it. I understand your position all too well. Democracy and it's penchant for the common man to express their views is.........bad. Socialism with it's penchant for "helping" the common man by restraining his inherently bad nature by his "betters" is much more preferable. Especially if democracy gets in the way of rewarding a valued demographic for thier monies and votes.

You see, I understand ya'll all too well. I just reject your position. Have a nice day. Merry christmas. :mrgreen:[/FONT][/SIZE]
Click to expand...

More hyper partisan crap. "Blah blah blah, you're a socialist. Blah blah blah, I actually didn't make a real argument that could be defended with logic and explanation, so all I'm going to do here is say you're a leftist and socialist to try my damnedest to escape the hole I've dug for myself".

You see, I understand y'all (this is the proper contraction, BTW) all too well. I just reject your intellectually dishonest and hyperpartisan position. Have a nice day. Happy Kwanzaa.
 
Dutch said:
Changing the institution of marriage, is an infringement upon those who posses traditional cultures.
Click to expand...

Only if they were trying to force you to gay marry. But they're not. You're still free to traditional marry.

Dutch said:
Only for you folks. For the rest of us it's something much more important.
Click to expand...

I don't care how "important" you think it is because there is nothing more important than the rights and liberties of the individual. Rights trump. You cannot use government force against the free exercise of the rights of others whom have done nothing wrong in the first place. Not justly. And that's all you argue for. "Traditionally, we trampled rights, so obviously we should still keep it.". This ain't Sparta anymore. It's 2010, time to catch up with the rest of us.
 
Dutch said:
I've heard this argument before, we're logical. You are not........because you don't agree with me. I have another word for it, arrogance.



Changing the institution of marriage, is an infringement upon those who posses traditional cultures. Again, you need to understand, this is an issue of great importance to........rich white folk. Among many of the rest of us, christian black, latinos, and the rest of us poor whites, it simply isn't. Perhaps you have been too good at identity politics.




Only for you folks. For the rest of us it's something much more important.
Click to expand...

There is no right of people to maintain a traditional culture. In fact, if traditional culture violates individual rights, then it is trumped every time. It was trumped when the slaves were freed, women were given the right to vote, Jim Crow laws went away, and when law against interracial marriage went away. Rights of individuals and fair and equal treatment is always legally more important than maintaining traditional culture in this country.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom