• 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!

After DOMA, gay couples still would not receive many federal benefits. [W:345]

I think the point is that marriage exists and has existed based on the idea of procreation. without the need for procreation you would have no need to marry. understand? This is a general idea, not the case by case basis you try and break it down to which just confuses the entire idea.

Not true. Whatever it may have existed for in the past, one of the main reason was and still is making a legal family connection between spouses. It still does that today and it is the only method of legal recognition available in the US for spouses, which is a legal family relationship.
 
Not true. Whatever it may have existed for in the past, one of the main reason was and still is making a legal family connection between spouses.

that's what civil unions are for. That would have solved your legal problem. Yet somehow that wasn't enough. I have a feeling nothing will ever be enough.
 
that's what civil unions are for. That would have solved your legal problem. Yet somehow that wasn't enough. I have a feeling nothing will ever be enough.

No. It is what marriage is for. Marriage is the union and it is fiscally irresponsible to have two unions that do the same thing.
 
that's what civil unions are for. That would have solved your legal problem. Yet somehow that wasn't enough. I have a feeling nothing will ever be enough.

Step one is marriage

Step two is take over the worlds nuclear arsenals

step thrree is B O O M

BWAAAAA HAHAHAHA
 
that's what civil unions are for. That would have solved your legal problem. Yet somehow that wasn't enough. I have a feeling nothing will ever be enough.

why do people try to push this fallacy?
you do know that most people for equal rights are educated on the subject and they understand the fact civil unions arent the solution or equal.
 
I think the point is that marriage exists and has existed based on the idea of procreation. without the need for procreation you would have no need to marry. understand? This is a general idea, not the case by case basis you try and break it down to which just confuses the entire idea.

another fallacy
procreation has ZERO to do with legal marriage
 
Actually, homosexuality fits a number of those definitions, especially 1. and 2.

Queers would fit in quite a few categories: most have noses, teeth, etc., Queers live in USA, quite a few have jobs, etc.

Noting that queers fit in some of the definitions for normals is preposterous.....as are most, if not all of your assertions.
 
Last edited:
I think the point is that marriage exists and has existed based on the idea of procreation. without the need for procreation you would have no need to marry. understand? This is a general idea, not the case by case basis you try and break it down to which just confuses the entire idea.

No, this is not accurate. Procreation can happen whether marriage occurs or not. And marriage can happen whether procreation occurs or not. There is no need to procreate for marriage to exist. This is in general. Understand?
 
Queers would fit in quite a few categories: most have noses, teeth, etc., Queers live in USA, quite a few have jobs, etc.

Noting that queers fit in some of the definitions for normals is preposterous.....as are most, if not all of your assertions.

If you mean statistically... like those who are left-handed or a genius, I agree. If you don't, then you are incorrect.
 
No, this is not accurate. Procreation can happen whether marriage occurs or not. And marriage can happen whether procreation occurs or not. There is no need to procreate for marriage to exist. This is in general. Understand?

Would you agree that it’s ok to tax gays with a “sin” tax? If not, how are they different from smokers or drinkers? If you claim it’s genetic, can you disprove a genetic tendency to smoke or drink?
I feel like my rights are being trampled by those who want me to respect their rights to make private choices. If there’s a difference, what is it?
 
Would you agree that it’s ok to tax gays with a “sin” tax? If not, how are they different from smokers or drinkers? If you claim it’s genetic, can you disprove a genetic tendency to smoke or drink?
I feel like my rights are being trampled by those who want me to respect their rights to make private choices. If there’s a difference, what is it?

Point out where I claimed it's genetic.
 
Point out where I claimed it's genetic.

I didn’t say you said it’s genetic. If you don’t think it’s genetic, how can you support discrimination and taxation against smokers and drinkers? I want to know how Gays are different from smokers in particular.

I’m not accusing you of having any positions; just asking what you think the difference is.
 
I didn’t say you said it’s genetic. If you don’t think it’s genetic, how can you support discrimination and taxation against smokers and drinkers? I want to know how Gays are different from smokers in particular.

I’m not accusing you of having any positions; just asking what you think the difference is.

The difference between what and in what context? Please be clear with what you are asking.
 
The difference between what and in what context? Please be clear with what you are asking.
I thought I was clear. Let me try to clarify further. I think I have a right to smoke cigarettes or drink beer without being discriminated against via a sin tax. I want to know if you think a “sin tax” would be acceptable on gay married couples and if not, why?

BTW, I'm not religious but I am logical.
 
I thought I was clear. Let me try to clarify further. I think I have a right to smoke cigarettes or drink beer without being discriminated against via a sin tax. I want to know if you think a “sin tax” would be acceptable on gay married couples and if not, why?

BTW, I'm not religious but I am logical.

What is the "sin" of which you are referring with gay married couples.
 
I thought I was clear. Let me try to clarify further. I think I have a right to smoke cigarettes or drink beer without being discriminated against via a sin tax. I want to know if you think a “sin tax” would be acceptable on gay married couples and if not, why?

BTW, I'm not religious but I am logical.

"Sin taxes" don't literally mean "we think this activity is sinful and are therefore taxing it."

Maybe that clears things up?
 
Queers would fit in quite a few categories: most have noses, teeth, etc., Queers live in USA, quite a few have jobs, etc.

Noting that queers fit in some of the definitions for normals is preposterous.....as are most, if not all of your assertions.

It's the truth. The definitions listed above of normal are easy to read and homosexuality fits into the top two easily. Just because you don't understand this or don't want to accept it, doesn't change the facts.
 
I thought I was clear. Let me try to clarify further. I think I have a right to smoke cigarettes or drink beer without being discriminated against via a sin tax. I want to know if you think a “sin tax” would be acceptable on gay married couples and if not, why?

BTW, I'm not religious but I am logical.

"Sin tax" is referring to things we know are bad for someone and that are sold. Marriage is not bad for people, even those of the same sex. And "sin tax" is talking about the fact that the product being sold is bad for the person but not bad enough to rate prohibition. Homosexuality isn't "sold", nor is same sex marriage. You can't tax something that isn't going through a commercial transaction. And you can't charge one group more for a contract that has nothing to do with the "sin" believed to be bad than you do other people.
 
"Sin tax" is referring to things we know are bad for someone and that are sold. Marriage is not bad for people, even those of the same sex. And "sin tax" is talking about the fact that the product being sold is bad for the person but not bad enough to rate prohibition. Homosexuality isn't "sold", nor is same sex marriage. You can't tax something that isn't going through a commercial transaction. And you can't charge one group more for a contract that has nothing to do with the "sin" believed to be bad than you do other people.

No tax on beautiful Russian Brides! WOOO HOOOO !!!!!!
 
Back
Top Bottom