• 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!

Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

truth seeker? said:
Why would you want to be married to sorry but must be said a CORRUPT ORIGINATION THE CHURCH WHICH DOES NOT EVEN REPRESENT THE VIEW'S OF JESUS COME ON
Click to expand...

You don't have to get legally married in any church.
 
roguenuke said:
I wouldn't settle for something other than marriage when other couples were given marriage either, and I'm heterosexual. Why should anyone have to settle for another name for their union just because some people do not approve of sharing the current name? Not to mention the cost of implementing such a thing.
Click to expand...

I agree. So long as the word marriage has legal force than we have to deal with equal protection. I wouldn't settle for civil unions for one group either. Though I still think the way to go is to have civil unions for everybody as the only legal union, and then let religious groups do what they want with the word "marriage" -- as long as it has no force of law.
 
head of joaquin said:
I agree. So long as the word marriage has legal force than we have to deal with equal protection. I wouldn't settle for civil unions for one group either. Though I still think the way to go is to have civil unions for everybody as the only legal union, and then let religious groups do what they want with the word "marriage" -- as long as it has no force of law.
Click to expand...

I don't agree about changing the term for several reasons. It wrongly gives into religious people that they have any sort of claim to the word marriage, which they don't. Second, it would cost money. Even a little cost just to appease those who wrongly believe they own a word is too much, especially considering our current economic situation. And last, it just feels wrong. Why should we change something that is already in place and easily adapts to same sex couples entering into it without a change in the name? It feels so wrong. As if we are knuckling under or giving into five year olds. "Okay, we won't call it marriage. We'll call it something else, and everyone will be happy." (Except everyone won't be happy with this change because there will be many from both sides who will still blame the other for forcing the change and it will be even more bitter than now.)
 
Last edited:
head of joaquin said:
I agree. So long as the word marriage has legal force than we have to deal with equal protection. I wouldn't settle for civil unions for one group either. Though I still think the way to go is to have civil unions for everybody as the only legal union, and then let religious groups do what they want with the word "marriage" -- as long as it has no force of law.
Click to expand...

again this is already the case, this is true today
so why change it? im not really understanding the motivation.
 
Papa bull said:
Yeah... you're one of the people I was talking about when I stated that homosexuals have rejected the concept of civil unions even if they carried all the exact same rights... which proved to me that it's relaly not about the rights as much as making a political statement. Which is why I'll be arguing against homosexual marriages ad infinitum now or until I have some reason to believe that it's really about rights and not about agendas and attention-seeking. And after the display I've seen lately, that will take some time if it ever happens at all.
Click to expand...

Separate is not equal.

You were always against treating people equally under the law. Gays wanting liberty has nothing to do with it. You don't like gay people that is obvious.
 
AGENT J said:
again this is already the case, this is true today
so why change it? im not really understanding the motivation.
Click to expand...

Marriage is the word the state uses, and should be used for all unions or none.
 
captainawesome said:
Use either marriage or civil union for both homosexual and heterosexual union.
Click to expand...

marriage is already being used for both and it should stay that way, theres zero logical or rational reason to change it.
only thing that needs done now is eventually all states will have to stop denying rights and discriminating and both marriage rights will be protected everywhere
 
Papa bull said:
I never used homo until you used "hetero". What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you don't like it, stop dishing it out.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that there's a history of the word "hetero" being used as a form of invective, as is obviously the case with the word "homo?" No? Alrighty then.
 
CriticalThought said:
Move to Kansas. Maybe Westboro Baptist Church will swing you the other way. :2razz:

I don't believe the butthurt act. I don't think everyone who opposes same sex marriage is a "hater" but I do think you are lacking in integrity if your principles are entirely based on being retaliatory to the whims of extremists. Yeah, there are dips on both sides. But you were never really on the "fence" if you are so clearly biased as to ignore the extremists on the other side.

And dude, you are doing exactly what you are accusing those activists of doing. You are badmouthing and condemning everyone with a different opinion than your own and seeking sympathy for being called a "hater" by the extremists. That is hypocrisy in my book.
Click to expand...

I think of it more as spite than hypocrisy. Eff me? Ok. Eff you. It's really that simple. It doesn't make me the "better man". It just makes me an honest one.
 
Papa bull said:
I think of it more as spite than hypocrisy. Eff me? Ok. Eff you. It's really that simple. It doesn't make me the "better man". It just makes me an honest one.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't because you are ignoring the incidents (which occur in much bigger numbers) of those against same sex marriage and homosexuality not only saying "eff you" to homosexuals but also threatening them with violence and incarceration just due to who they are attracted to. Plus, if you considered that the "eff you" was directed at you prior to this "change of opinion" that you claimed to have had, then you weren't actually on the fence to begin with at all. You already considered yourself anti-ssm because that is the only reason why you would feel such a statement was directed at you personally from pro-ssm people, yet not feel the same way about anti-ssm statements toward pro-ssm people.
 
roguenuke said:
No it doesn't because you are ignoring the incidents (which occur in much bigger numbers) of those against same sex marriage and homosexuality not only saying "eff you" to homosexuals but also threatening them with violence and incarceration just due to who they are attracted to. Plus, if you considered that the "eff you" was directed at you prior to this "change of opinion" that you claimed to have had, then you weren't actually on the fence to begin with at all. You already considered yourself anti-ssm because that is the only reason why you would feel such a statement was directed at you personally from pro-ssm people, yet not feel the same way about anti-ssm statements toward pro-ssm people.
Click to expand...

You don't have to be anti-Homosexual marriage to get the business from activists. Merely argue sympathy or even empathy for those that aren't ready to accept homosexual marriage.

But at this point, I don't care about that any more. The true face of the homosexual activist movement has been revealed. So I guess there is really no point in trying to hide it now.
 
Papa bull said:
You don't have to be anti-Homosexual marriage to get the business from activists. Merely argue sympathy or even empathy for those that aren't ready to accept homosexual marriage.

But at this point, I don't care about that any more. The true face of the homosexual activist movement has been revealed. So I guess there is really no point in trying to hide it now.
Click to expand...

The true face is people want equality.
 
Papa bull said:
You don't have to be anti-Homosexual marriage to get the business from activists. Merely argue sympathy or even empathy for those that aren't ready to accept homosexual marriage.

But at this point, I don't care about that any more. The true face of the homosexual activist movement has been revealed. So I guess there is really no point in trying to hide it now.
Click to expand...

For most of them, you have to be anti-ssm or anti-gay rights to "get the business" from pro-ssm/pro-gay rights people.

But again, I stand by you being anti-ssm/anti-gay rights from the beginning since you want to claim that there is a movement with some nefarious, hidden agenda that I'm willing to bet you have no real proof for/evidence of, and anything you would come up with as evidence would be from fringe ranks of the gay rights group, not be involved with trying to get same sex marriage legal at all, or really something that was made up by anti-ssm/gay rights people altogether.
 
Aderleth said:
Yeah, I suspected that was the point you wanted to make. As I, and every man in the world can attest, getting blood flowing is a simple matter of manual stimulation. Hell, sometimes a stiff breeze is enough (pardon the pun, I couldn't help myself). Does that indicate that I'm sexually attracted to either my hand or the wind? No, it does not.

Along the same lines, are you familiar with the term "gay for pay"?
Click to expand...

So, where is this lack of control?
 
Aderleth said:
Over one's desires. Same as it ever was. You're still conflating two distinct issues.
Click to expand...

So, despite all our advancement beyond our basic primal instincts....we're actually just slaves to them?

Interesting.
 
mac said:
So, despite all our advancement beyond our basic primal instincts....we're actually just slaves to them?

Interesting.
Click to expand...

Yes. Try not eating for a week. Humans are still animals.
 
mac said:
So, despite all our advancement beyond our basic primal instincts....we're actually just slaves to them?

Interesting.
Click to expand...

You're surprised by this? Tell me, when have you ever, in your entire life, made a conscious decision to be attracted to someone?
 
Aderleth said:
You're surprised by this? Tell me, when have you ever, in your entire life, made a conscious decision to be attracted to someone?
Click to expand...

Oh, plenty of times. Tell me, do you think there is any conscious decision making at all involved with choosing a mate?
 
mac said:
Oh, plenty of times.
Click to expand...

I think you're lying. Possibly to me, possibly to yourself. Can't be sure.

mac said:
Tell me, do you think there is any conscious decision making at all involved with choosing a mate?
Click to expand...

Sure there is. But there's no conscious decision making going on with respect to who you're attracted to. Again: you're confusing distinct issues.
 
Papa bull said:
I think of it more as spite than hypocrisy. Eff me? Ok. Eff you. It's really that simple. It doesn't make me the "better man". It just makes me an honest one.
Click to expand...

ROFL. Your political principles boil down to, "You annoyed/offended/upset me so I'm going to try to annoy/offend/upset you." That sure is honest but it lacks tact to the point of being self defeating. The truth is you looked for a reason to oppose same sex marriage, and you found one of the most enigmatic ones I could have imagined. It is clear you don't have any close relationships with gay people, otherwise your feelings on this issue would not be as superficial as they are.
 
mac said:
Oh, plenty of times. Tell me, do you think there is any conscious decision making at all involved with choosing a mate?
Click to expand...

Sort of. I think we make the decision on an unconscious, gut level and then later we use conscious reasoning to fabricate an explanation for why we made that decision. Of course this discussion is going nowhere since even the best in the field of psychology are debating this very topic. Everyone is entitled to their opinion on this one.
 
mac said:
Oh, plenty of times. Tell me, do you think there is any conscious decision making at all involved with choosing a mate?
Click to expand...

Choosing to be with someone and being attracted to that person are different things.

We may discount a mate that we are attracted to for more practical or even less practical reasons. And some may even choose a mate that they are not attracted to at all for practical or even unpractical reasons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom