• 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!

Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

clownboy said:
What security do you gain by having the title? Sounds like you're backtracking your argument - you've denied that it was about social acceptance.

And as I've been reminding you, you DO have something to lose - legal homosexual marriage and the benefits of such.

Look, I'd like to see you and your family have all the benefits that hetero life partners have. Is that my mistake?
Click to expand...


if true you would simply be in support of equal rights for gays and granting SSM. :shrug:
 
clownboy said:
If it's equal why the need to call it marriage? Question goes both ways. The answer is obvious if you're not blinded by bias.
Click to expand...

I agree 100% everybody educated on this topic, honest and biased understands the fact that equal but separate is not equal LMAO

thanks the irony of your post is very amusing.
 
AGENT J said:
separate but equal is factually not equal history has has been proven fact.
feel free to believe the lie if you like but you are factually wrong:shrug: try again
Click to expand...

No, as usual you're confusing your biased opinion with fact. We're not talking about separate but equal. We're talking same benefits, different title.

AGENT J said:
even foe MORE support that you are wrong legal precedence has already been set showing how civil unions and domestic partnerships are as legal binding and concrete.

Sorry your opinion loses to history and facts.
Click to expand...

I'm not the one asserting they aren't (legal [sic] binding and concrete), perhaps you have your posters mixed up. I don't trust your education on history and the facts to begin with.
 
AGENT J said:
if true you would simply be in support of equal rights for gays and granting SSM. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Again no. I've always been for equal rights under the law for homosexuals. I've never believed the law should be adjudicated by what happens [legally] in your bedroom. SSM, not so much. Again, I believe in equal benefits available.
 
AGENT J said:
I agree 100% everybody educated on this topic, honest and biased understands the fact that equal but separate is not equal LMAO

thanks the irony of your post is very amusing.
Click to expand...

You're free to stop reading my posts at any time. The true funny is that YOU made that little freudian slip bolded above that betrays your stance.
 
Strucker said:
But it is now, in lots of places. And it's expanding. And it's not going away.

Those who are frightened about it are going to have to face the facts sooner or later.
Click to expand...

Laws that can be overturned

Gay Marriage is still pretend marriage. It isn't real marriage.


That's correct; nor are they asking for "special rights."
Click to expand...

Gays are asking for the special right to change the definition of marriage from man + woman to man + ? or woman + ? to fit their specific selfish needs. If they are granted that special right, other groups based upon sexual behavior that want the same special rights are going to want their day in court.

Strucker said:
Apparently, some people "own" certain words, and feel a little stingy about sharing.
Click to expand...

So words can have whatever definition people want them to have based upon how they feel right?

Why even have a Dictionary?
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
1. I am paid to teach, I do this as recreation... if you cannot understand what is being said, maybe you should ask someone for some assistance?
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should be more clear.

2. All life is hectic, where ones sees stability is where there is civilization, civilizations are built upon the family as the most basic unit, families are created by opposite sex couplings...where do you see same sex unions civilizations... or even sex sex communities that have survived any length of time at all? With, like as in opposite sex families, an uninterrupted history from as far back in recorded history as we can go?
Click to expand...

Perhaps the opportunity was never given. Have you ever considered that? And now look. We've allowed Gay families to form. I don't see us collapsing into mayhem.



3. You could not argue that in any event. I am also arguing that this is a great risk as we have nothing upon which to base a successful outcome of the implementation of such a foreign policy into the social make up of this country that the whole world depends upon to remain strong. That should help you as a hint to figuring out number 1 above, though.
Click to expand...

You realize gays have been marrying for several years now, right? Massachusets isn't about to collapse. Washington is doing just fine. So much for that risk, eh?

4. Don't believe me? Look it up. Maybe you will prove me wrong on this one point at least. You won't, but...
Click to expand...

I did. Guess what?



Still 50%.

5. Nice fake to the left there...how about answering the question instead of calling people names, like that is a real answer... the question again: upon what legal basis would you stop anybody/anything from getting married? We have the 14th Amendment, equal protection under the law, once you start giving certain groups special privileges, what will be the basis to deny any other groups... the liberal "D" word, discrimination will be tossed everywhere... how will you counter that... let's say I want to marry my adult sister... what is your basis of denial in the law?
Click to expand...

Perosnally? I don't give a flying ****. But my support for gay marriage is not vested in the idea of equality. I support SSM because it will increase the amount of kids that will grow up in stable households.

6. Well lets all hear that mountain sing, don't keep it to yourself man, I am sure it is utterly fascinating fiction, yet persuasive, right...?
Click to expand...

What do you want to know? It's a broad spectrum, but I think I can handle it. Shoot me a question, and I'll give you a report.
 
clownboy said:
1.)No, as usual you're confusing your biased opinion with fact. We're not talking about separate but equal. We're talking same benefits, different title.



I'm not the one asserting they aren't (legal [sic] binding and concrete), perhaps you have your posters mixed up. I don't trust your education on history and the facts to begin with.
Click to expand...

1.)exactly which makes it not equal as history proves, thanks for supporting the facts previously stated lol

2.) again didnt say you did, i was stating more facts that prove your opinion wrong LOL

your opinion on my knowledge of history is meaningless, history and facts still prove you wrong :shrug:
 
clownboy said:
Again no. I've always been for equal rights under the law for homosexuals. I've never believed the law should be adjudicated by what happens [legally] in your bedroom. SSM, not so much. Again, I believe in equal benefits available.
Click to expand...

nope you factually are not because what you want is not equal :shrug:
feel free to THINK you are but again facts prove you wrong
 
clownboy said:
You're free to stop reading my posts at any time. The true funny is that YOU made that little freudian slip bolded above that betrays your stance.
Click to expand...

no i like pointing out your misinformation and proving you wrong, its entertaining :shrug: :D

equal but separate is factually not equal no matter how you feel LOL
 
CriticalThought said:
I do not want equality. I want the security marriage provides. You refuse to understand me or other gay people and demand to be understood. That is your mistake. I have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
Click to expand...

So can a father marry his son because they want the "security marriage provides"

Where does your reasoning stop? Who would you exclude from having the "security marriage provides"?
 
Bronson said:
1.)Gay Marriage is still pretend marriage. It isn't real marriage.
2.)Gays are asking for the special right to change the definition of marriage from man + woman to man + ? or woman + ? to fit their specific selfish needs. If they are granted that special right, other groups based upon sexual behavior that want the same special rights are going to want their day in court.
3.)Why even have a Dictionary?
Click to expand...

1.) as your statment is written facts prove this wrong LMAO
2.) prove this wrong too
3.) excellent point

lets look at a dictionary

marriage:
(1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law
(2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>

dictionary proves you wrong too LMAO you lose again
 
AGENT J said:
1.) as your statment is written facts prove this wrong LMAO
2.) prove this wrong too
3.) excellent point

lets look at a dictionary

marriage:
(1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law
(2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>

dictionary proves you wrong too LMAO you lose again
Click to expand...

The definition of marriage has always been man + woman. This is the oldest notion and understanding of the tradition in human history. That's just reality. Not my problem you are incapable of dealing with reality. :lol:

You have not proven anything wrong. Screaming histrionics and using emotional reasoning while cackling LOL doesn't disprove facts. Nice try though.

Gay Marriage has nothing to do with marriage inclusion. It has everything to do with the destruction of marriage as an institution. It trivializes marriage, which is the intended purpose. The real agenda of radical homosexuals has been exposed by one of their own in their own words:

Why get married when you could be happy? - Life Matters - ABC Radio National (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

It’s a no-brainer that gays should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. …(F)ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.

The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist. And I don’t like taking part in creating fictions about my life. That’s sort of not what I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago.

I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally… I met my new partner, and she had just had a baby, and that baby’s biological father is my brother, and my daughter’s biological father is a man who lives in Russia, and my adopted son also considers him his father. So the five parents break down into two groups of three… And really, I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality, and I don’t think that’s compatible with the institution of marriage.
Click to expand...

Have a nice day :2wave:
 
Last edited:
Bronson said:
The definition of marriage has always been man + woman. This is the oldest notion and understanding of the tradition in human history. That's just reality. Not my problem you are incapable of dealing with reality. :lol:

You have not proven anything wrong. Screaming histrionics and using emotional reasoning while cackling LOL doesn't disprove facts. Nice try though.

Gay Marriage has nothing to do with marriage inclusion. It has everything to do with the destruction of marriage as an institution. It trivializes marriage, which is the intended purpose. The real agenda of radical homosexuals has been exposed by one of their own in their own words:

Why get married when you could be happy? - Life Matters - ABC Radio National (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)



Have a nice day :2wave:
Click to expand...
facts still prove you wrong no matter how many times you punch your keyboard and have emotional temper tantrums LMAO

thanks for posting more opinion, NOTHING has changed :laughat:
 
AGENT J said:
facts still prove you wrong no matter how many times you punch your keyboard and have emotional temper tantrums LMAO

thanks for posting more opinion, NOTHING has changed :laughat:
Click to expand...

Projection noted :2wave:
 
AGENT J said:
no i like pointing out your misinformation and proving you wrong, its entertaining :shrug: :D

equal but separate is factually not equal no matter how you feel LOL
Click to expand...

Yes, I see you take great amusement discussing these matters with yourself. You can manufacture fact and your echo won't disagree with you. I've heard your position, and your take on history and fact, and I disagree with it and doubt your ability to recognise fact from your opinion.

So this is the last response you get from me on this thread (to you), I'll let you continue to debate with yourself in the comfort of your echo chamber.
 
Bronson said:
Projection noted :2wave:
Click to expand...

then simply prove your lie, prove it will never be real marriage i cant wait. Teach me a lesson and FACTUALLY prove it wont be real marriage :lamo:2rofll:

ready GO!
 
clownboy said:
What security do you gain by having the title? Sounds like you're backtracking your argument - you've denied that it was about social acceptance.

And as I've been reminding you, you DO have something to lose - legal homosexual marriage and the benefits of such.

Look, I'd like to see you and your family have all the benefits that hetero life partners have. Is that my mistake?
Click to expand...

It wasn't about the title. It was about the rights and protections. There has never been and never will be a civil union that offers the same rights and protections as marriage. Feel free to entertain the delusion that people who oppose same sex marriage will embrace such an idea as creating civil unions with all the same rights as marriage for gays, but it is nothing more than a delusion.

And no, I have nothing to lose. I am not currently married. And even if same sex marriage was made illegal everywhere in this country, I am a high skilled worker with experience. I will have no trouble taking my skills to a country that would recognize my relationship. I feel for those who are not afforded that opportunity and I will continue to argue the case, but if it becomes apparent that this country cannot look past its animosity towards gays, then it doesn't deserve me and what I have to offer.
 
clownboy said:
Yes, I see you take great amusement discussing these matters with yourself. You can manufacture fact and your echo won't disagree with you. I've heard your position, and your take on history and fact, and I disagree with it and doubt your ability to recognise fact from your opinion.

So this is the last response you get from me on this thread (to you), I'll let you continue to debate with yourself in the comfort of your echo chamber.
Click to expand...

zero facts have been "manufactured"
i haven't posted MY positions nor have i posted MY take on history, two more lies :shrug:

i have only pointed out how facts prove your opinion wrong.

yielding to facts is a good move, good job.
 
AGENT J said:
then simply prove your lie, prove it will never be real marriage i cant wait. Teach me a lesson and FACTUALLY prove it wont be real marriage :lamo:2rofll:

ready GO!
Click to expand...

Gay Marriage isn't real marriage

It's pretend marriage

Marriage has never meant anything other than man + woman. Not my problem you are unable to deal with facts so you're reduced to beclowning yourself with emotional histrionics
 
Bronson said:
So can a father marry his son because they want the "security marriage provides"

Where does your reasoning stop? Who would you exclude from having the "security marriage provides"?
Click to expand...

Incest is illegal in every state. Sodomy is not illegal. As such, your argument is ridiculous and makes you look the same.

Furthermore, why would a father and son even want to marry? That would keep them from being able to marry when they found a partner they loved. It also doesn't make sense because marriage basically establishes "next of kin" status. If you are already kin then why would you need the rights and protections of marriage? Your argument shows you have an extremely poor understanding of what marriage is and what it does.
 
Bronson said:
Gay Marriage isn't real marriage

It's pretend marriage

Marriage has never meant anything other than man + woman. Not my problem you are unable to deal with facts so you're reduced to beclowning yourself with emotional histrionics
Click to expand...

Your argument is both factually and historically inaccurate...but meh...it doesn't seem like you are arguing for the sake of truth.
 
CriticalThought said:
It wasn't about the title. It was about the rights and protections. There has never been and never will be a civil union that offers the same rights and protections as marriage. Feel free to entertain the delusion that people who oppose same sex marriage will embrace such an idea as creating civil unions with all the same rights as marriage for gays, but it is nothing more than a delusion.
Click to expand...

You're all over the map. When it suits you you're not after equality and then you are (that's what equal "rights and protections" are). You aren't after social acceptance, then you are - that's what wanting SSM to be accepted by society is.

You say that civil unions now don't offer the same rights and protections, but when I ask you why "your side" has never sought that, you say it's impossible to do. Where clearly it IS possible with simple legislation. It was more possible federally before DOMA, but when I say DOMA was a reaction to your side's overreach, you deny that. But still possible.

You SAY you don't need the title, but here you are threatening to take your toys and move to another country if you can't have the title. Which is it?
 
Bronson said:
Gay Marriage isn't real marriage

It's pretend marriage

Marriage has never meant anything other than man + woman. Not my problem you are unable to deal with facts so you're reduced to beclowning yourself with emotional histrionics
Click to expand...

its funny you calim me emotional, your the only one upset around here, im just laughing at you

you keep repeating this lie and yet you cant provide any fact to support your false claim.

please do so know, just prove it!, teach me a lesson and prove me wrong!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom