• 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

Bronson said:
Marriage has always meant man + woman

It is one of the oldest widespread notions of a tradition and institution in human history

I understand facts are inconvenient to your position. Not my problem though.
Click to expand...

All you did was repeat the same fallacy.
 
Cardinal said:
All you did was repeat the same fallacy.
Click to expand...

It's not a fallacy

It's historical fact beyond refute

Marriage has always meant man + woman. There has never been a widespread notion that marriage has meant anything other than man + woman. Not man + ? or woman + ?

Even the Spartans recognized and respected the institution of marriage as being man + woman and there was rampant homosexuality among the warriors
 
Bronson said:
It's not a fallacy
Click to expand...

It's a fallacy because just because something may have always been, doesn't mean that it is logically supported in argument or even right, for two reasons: the tradition might be entirely based on incorrect grounds, and/or the circumstances may have changed and the assumption may therefore be untrue. Considering the rapidly changing circumstances of marriage as well as who may conduct them, marriage is a particularly poor example of a tradition substantiated by history.

Bronson said:
It's historical fact beyond refute
Click to expand...

And this is where, if you have any self respect, you'll abandon altogether the historical argument in favor of one man, one woman: gay marriage is now accepted by a number of states and countries, therefore the argument that marriage has always been heterosexual is demonstrably false.
 
Cardinal said:
It's a fallacy because just because something may have always been, doesn't mean that it is logically supported in argument or even right, for two reasons: the tradition might be entirely based on incorrect grounds, and/or the circumstances may have changed and the assumption may therefore be untrue. Considering the rapidly changing circumstances of marriage as well as who may conduct them, marriage is a particularly poor example of a tradition substantiated by history.
Click to expand...

So you're against science now?

Traditions are an important source of public standards. The tradition of marriage is one of the oldest and most trusted institutions in the history of mankind for a reason. Children do best when raised by their biological parents in a low conflict household.

And this is where, if you have any self respect, you'll abandon altogether the historical argument in favor of one man, one woman: gay marriage is now accepted by a number of states and countries, therefore the argument that marriage has always been heterosexual is demonstrably false.
Click to expand...

So not only are you against science, you're against historical fact as well.

Gay marriage isn't real marriage and it never will be. It serves no real purpose socially or economically to society. Marriage has always meant man + woman. Not man + ? or woman + ?. If gays are allowed the special right to change the definition of marriage to fit their sexual behavior (or because they want benefits), then other groups are going to want the same "right" as well. Sisters marrying sisters. Brothers marrying brothers. Fathers marrying adult sons. Group Marriage. Whose "right to marry" would you discriminate against?
 
Bronson said:
So you're against science now?

Traditions are an important source of public standards. The tradition of marriage is one of the oldest and most trusted institutions in the history of mankind for a reason. Children do best when raised by their biological parents in a low conflict household.



So not only are you against science, you're against historical fact as well.

Gay marriage isn't real marriage and it never will be. It serves no real purpose socially or economically to society. Marriage has always meant man + woman. Not man + ? or woman + ?. If gays are allowed the special right to change the definition of marriage to fit their sexual behavior (or because they want benefits), then other groups are going to want the same "right" as well. Sisters marrying sisters. Brothers marrying brothers. Fathers marrying adult sons. Group Marriage. Whose "right to marry" would you discriminate against?
Click to expand...

Articulate harm caused to you by two men marrying.
 
CriticalThought said:
If you can point to clear evidence of how same sex marriage has been harmful to society or to other marriages, then I will be happy to reconsider my position. Your side has had decades to make the case that same sex marriage is harmful and you have failed on every occasion.

I want marriage, not for me, but for my family. Any children I have would benefit from it. Is it not selfish of you to deprive children of gays the benefits of having married parents?
Click to expand...

How about if you can show me where this experiment has been around long enough to be studied as to its harm versus benefit to society. If not, keep to your isolated pockets and show us, the rest, that you do us no harm, the FDA model perhaps, then we will take your proposal under consideration. I don't think we need you to reconsider your position if you do not understand that which has already been given. We just need the majority...

And most eventually come around to understanding logic... and what's best.

Myself, I would rather like to preclude the ever having to deprive gay parents being parents. Sorry if it hurts feelings, but the truth can be painful...I do not think it the best for society nor the children to be put in that position... now that is what would truly be really selfish... if you are actually, genuinely looking out for what is best for the child and not for you, the parent. So, yes, I would like them to have married parents as well.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
How about if you can show me where this experiment has been around long enough to be studied as to its harm versus benefit to society. If not, keep to your isolated pockets and show us, the rest, that you do us no harm, the FDA model perhaps, then we will take your proposal under consideration. I don't think we need you to reconsider your position if you do not understand that which has already been given. We just need the majority...
Click to expand...

Okey dokes. I'll just call up the Gay Mafia and we will get right on rolling back the ol' Gay Agenda until you are satisfied that two dudes or two girls getting married won't end life as we know it. :lamo

Myself, I would rather like to preclude the ever having to deprive gay parents being parents. Sorry if it hurts feelings, but the truth can be painful...I do not think it the best for society nor the children to be put in that position... now that is what would truly be really selfish... if you are actually, genuinely looking out for what is best for the child and not for you, the parent. So, yes, I would like them to have married parents as well.
Click to expand...

Ah, so you are one of those types! :roll:
 
Deuce said:
Articulate harm caused to you by two men marrying.
Click to expand...

If he could have done it, he would have. His cop-out is that it hasn't been around long enough to demonstrate harm.

Apparently, since he has some sort of authority on the issue, we cannot have same sex marriage until we demonstrate it is not harmful and at the same time he argues we cannot demonstrate it isn't harmful until we have it.

Funny how social conservative logic always works out to keep things exactly the same.
 
CriticalThought said:
Okey dokes. I'll just call up the Gay Mafia and we will get right on rolling back the ol' Gay Agenda until you are satisfied that two dudes or two girls getting married won't end life as we know it. :lamo
Click to expand...

Well, you just let us know when you got that all accomplished, we can look at the data ... my people will get in contact with your people. Problem solved.



CriticalThought said:
Ah, so you are one of those types! :roll:
Click to expand...

Yes, just one of those free thinking, free speaking, moral and looking out for the short and long term good of my society types? Sure. Not cowed by those wanting to use just the sort of subtle and not so subtle intimidation you are attempting right there to keep people from saying exactly, squarely, what needs to be said. Your side is BOLD enough to assert special rights when there is no right nor obligation for society to give it and for which society recieves nothing but a kick in the teeth in return. Tolerance is not enough for "you types".

Beyond acceptance even, we have to condone and support your lifestyle to the detriment of the rest of society...think nobody is suppose to say that out loud? Must have me confused with the Neville Chamberlain types, the appeasers in this culture war for the very survival of my nation.

So, yeah, I am.
 
Last edited:
Bronson said:
Dodge noted

Gay Marriage is not a superior form of marriage. It is pretend marriage. An inferior form of marriage.

Fail
Click to expand...

And that's what's great about this country: you're allowed to have that opinion.

Amusing side note: there was once a debater who argued, on this site or another, that all the states that approved gay marriage were "fake states." Really.
 
Cardinal said:
And that's what's great about this country: you're allowed to have that opinion.

Amusing side note: there was once a debater who argued, on this site or another, that all the states that approved gay marriage were "fake states." Really.
Click to expand...

IMO, straight marriages are a failed social experiment. 50% end in divorce, many cheat on their spouses, or abuse them or their children.

It's obvious that the heterosexual lifestyle is incompatible with marriage
 
Cardinal said:
And that's what's great about this country: you're allowed to have that opinion.

Amusing side note: there was once a debater who argued, on this site or another, that all the states that approved gay marriage were "fake states." Really.
Click to expand...

Gay Marriage isn't real marriage

It is pretend marriage
 
Bronson said:
Gay Marriage isn't real marriage

It is pretend marriage
Click to expand...

Yes, you said that already, and as I said, you're allowed to have that opinion. You're not going to say it again, are you?
 
Cardinal said:
Yes, you said that already, and as I said, you're allowed to have that opinion. You're not going to say it again, are you?
Click to expand...

Gay Marriage = Woman getting married to fairground ride - Telegraph

Miss Wolfe, 33, from Pennsylvania, will change her surname to Weber after the manufacturer of the ride she travels 160 miles to visit 10 times per year, according to reports

“I love him as much as women love their husbands and know we’ll be together forever,” she said.

Miss Wolfe first fell for the ride when she was 13: “I was instantly attracted to him sexually and mentally.
Click to expand...

Both are pretend marriage
 
Bronson said:
Gay Marriage isn't real marriage

It is pretend marriage
Click to expand...

this is simply a lie the way you state it.
You are making a general statement about marriage and it is 100% false.

now you could say there cant be a very specific type of religion based gay marriage and that could be accurate but your statement above is false.

gay marriage in general exists and its 100% real and thats a fact LMAO

repeat your opinion 300 more times it just shows how severely uneducated your posts are on this topic and what you are saying will never be true. :D good luck
 
Bronson said:
Gay Marriage isn't real marriage

It is pretend marriage
Click to expand...

Uh huh. Given the committed same sex couples I have known compared to some of the cheating, abusive, etc. heterosexual couples I have known who were married...I find your statement shows a childishly simplistic view of marriage. Get real before you try to tell people what is real.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Well, you just let us know when you got that all accomplished, we can look at the data ... my people will get in contact with your people. Problem solved.





Yes, just one of those free thinking, free speaking, moral and looking out for the short and long term good of my society types? Sure. Not cowed by those wanting to use just the sort of subtle and not so subtle intimidation you are attempting right there to keep people from saying exactly, squarely, what needs to be said. Your side is BOLD enough to assert special rights when there is no right nor obligation for society to give it and for which society recieves nothing but a kick in the teeth in return. Tolerance is not enough for "you types".

Beyond acceptance even, we have to condone and support your lifestyle to the detriment of the rest of society...think nobody is suppose to say that out loud? Must have me confused with the Neville Chamberlain types, the appeasers in this culture war for the very survival of my nation.

So, yeah, I am.
Click to expand...

Got it! You don't like gay people. Pretty simple. All the rest is just your rationalizations.
 
CriticalThought said:
Uh huh. Given the committed same sex couples I have known compared to some of the cheating, abusive, etc. heterosexual couples I have known who were married...I find your statement shows a childishly simplistic view of marriage. Get real before you try to tell people what is real.
Click to expand...

You have to resort to ad hominems and emotional arguments because you're grasping at straws

Promiscuity is far more prevalent in the homosexual community and within their relationships than heterosexual relationships as a % of population. Sexual compulsion among gay men is unusually high as well.

Big spike in cases of syphilis in S.F. / Gay, bisexual men affected most - SFGate

Experts believe syphilis is on the rise among gay and bisexual men because they are engaging in unprotected sex with multiple partners, many of whom they met in anonymous situations such as sex clubs, adult bookstores, meetings through the Internet and in bathhouses.
Click to expand...

Secondly, the weakness of individual people does not tarnish the credibility of the institution. Marriage is one of the oldest institutions of the human race, with specific social and economic purposes. Gay "Marriage" doesn't fit into the institution anymore than I would fit in at all an all female fitness club as a male, or that woman marrying a roller coaster does. Any marriage other than man + woman is not real marriage. They are pretend marriages. Homosexuals are defined by their sexual behavior while heterosexuals are defined by their roles as parents. Biologically it's irrefutable. Children do best when raised by their biological parents in a low conflict household. I find it ironic that you're projecting that other people have "childlike views on marriage" when the notion of "Gay Marriage" is about as childlike a want as there could be. Wanting Gay Marriage is an emotional and selfish need, with no respect for the institution, much like how a when a 5 year old wants something, he just "wants it", regardless.

Gay "Marriage" isn't real marriage

It's pretend marriage
 
Bronson said:
You have to resort to ad hominems and emotional arguments because you're grasping at straws

Promiscuity is far more prevalent in the homosexual community and within their relationships than heterosexual relationships as a % of population. Sexual compulsion among gay men is unusually high as well.

Big spike in cases of syphilis in S.F. / Gay, bisexual men affected most - SFGate



Secondly, the weakness of individual people does not tarnish the credibility of the institution. Marriage is one of the oldest institutions of the human race, with specific social and economic purposes. Gay "Marriage" doesn't fit into the institution anymore than I would fit in at all an all female fitness club as a male, or that woman marrying a roller coaster does. Any marriage other than man + woman is not real marriage. They are pretend marriages. Homosexuals are defined by their sexual behavior while heterosexuals are defined by their roles as parents. Biologically it's irrefutable. Children do best when raised by their biological parents in a low conflict household. I find it ironic that you're projecting that other people have "childlike views on marriage" when the notion of "Gay Marriage" is about as childlike a want as there could be. Wanting Gay Marriage is an emotional and selfish need, with no respect for the institution, much like how a when a 5 year old wants something, he just "wants it", regardless.

Gay "Marriage" isn't real marriage

It's pretend marriage
Click to expand...

Are heterosexual marriages where one of the participants cannot have children (my wife can't have chldren) pretend marriages also?
Or are they just inferior.

Seems to me that 50 percent of heterosexual marriages are pretend marriages also,judging by the divorce rate.

And whats wrong with having emotional and even selfish needs?
You're indulging on your emotional and selfish need to be "right" on this very forum.
Sometimes,it isn't all about you,Bronson.Sometimes it's about someone else.
 
Verthaine said:
Are heterosexual marriages where one of the participants cannot have children (my wife can't have chldren) pretend marriages also?
Or are they just inferior.
Click to expand...

Nope

They do not change the definition of marriage from man + woman to man + ? or woman + ?.

Seems to me that 50 percent of heterosexual marriages are pretend marriages also,judging by the divorce rate.
Click to expand...

The individual weaknesses of people do not tarnish the credibility of the institution as a whole

And whats wrong with having emotional and even selfish needs?
You're indulging on your emotional and selfish need to be "right" on this very forum.
Sometimes,it isn't all about you,Bronson.Sometimes it's about someone else.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to change an institution, join an exclusive club, and change the very definition and meaning/notion of an institution like the radical militant homosexual community is. Try again.
 
Bronson said:
Nope

They do not change the definition of marriage from man + woman to man + ? or woman + ?.



The individual weaknesses of people do not tarnish the credibility of the institution as a whole



I'm not trying to change an institution, join an exclusive club, and change the very definition and meaning/notion of an institution like the radical militant homosexual community is. Try again.
Click to expand...

Then what are you trying to do?
How does changing the definition of marriage affect YOU personally?

Radical militant homosexual community?Ohhh spooky language.Why are you allowed to other demonize people?And are others allowed to demonize you?
Are people allowed to call you a megalomaniac?Since you insist that your opinions are facts.

Since you are constantly on these types of threads,doesn't that make you a militant?
And since the majority of this country supports SSM,doesn't that make you the radical?
Yet you trying to prevent others from choosing for themselves how they define a word, and prevent them from joining an exclusive club,and trying to prevent others from changing an institution.

Explain to me again just why institutions aren't allowed to be changed,if the majority of poeple want to?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom