• 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!

On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long [W:29, 210]

Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

Dragonfly said:
Homosexual relationships are normal and equal to traditional in every single solitary way with the smallest of exceptions that there are two of the same gender people in one, and opposite gender in the other.

Both have jobs. Both have bills. Both own homes. Both drive cars. Both pay taxes. Both have fights. Both buy groceries. Both cook dinners. Both cut grass. Both have deep personal feelings of love and commitment for each other. Both have pets. Both put out garbage. Both shovel snow. Both watch TV. Both read. Both vote. Both may serve in the military. Both have families. Both ......

EVERYTHING homosexuals do heterosexuals do. They just do a few things with a different gender.

What percentage of your overall life would you guesstimate is spent having sex? 5% maybe? Probably less.

So if you subtract the "icky sex with the same gender spouse" - there's absolutely NO difference between a gay marriage and a straight marriage.
Click to expand...

Normal and equal, uh? Lets review some of the words you used to describe normal and equal.

"smallest exceptions"
"two of the same gender in one"
"everything homosexuals do heterosexuals do. They just do a few things with a different gender."
"icky sex with the same gender spouse"

Then the kicker-
"there's absolutely no difference between gay marriage and a straight marriage."

You have not described a normal marriage. Though you left some things out, even you finally got around to admitting some differences.
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

ItAin'tFree said:
Normal and equal, uh? Lets review some of the words you used to describe normal and equal.

"smallest exceptions"
"two of the same gender in one"
"everything homosexuals do heterosexuals do. They just do a few things with a different gender."
"icky sex with the same gender spouse"

Then the kicker-
"there's absolutely no difference between gay marriage and a straight marriage."

You have not described a normal marriage. Though you left some things out, even you finally got around to admitting some differences.
Click to expand...

So, other than the actual sex part - what's different between a gay relationship and a straight relationship????

Because everything else is the same.

And sex makes up a very small portion of life.

So the differences between the two are minuscule unless you're trying to make something bigger than it really is.

So tell us, what's different?
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

Dragonfly said:
Homosexual relationships are normal and equal to traditional in every single solitary way with the smallest of exceptions that there are two of the same gender people in one, and opposite gender in the other.

Both have jobs. Both have bills. Both own homes. Both drive cars. Both pay taxes. Both have fights. Both buy groceries. Both cook dinners. Both cut grass. Both have deep personal feelings of love and commitment for each other. Both have pets. Both put out garbage. Both shovel snow. Both watch TV. Both read. Both vote. Both may serve in the military. Both have families. Both ......

EVERYTHING homosexuals do heterosexuals do. They just do a few things with a different gender.

What percentage of your overall life would you guesstimate is spent having sex? 5% maybe? Probably less.

So if you subtract the "icky sex with the same gender spouse" - there's absolutely NO difference between a gay marriage and a straight marriage.
Click to expand...

That all sounds very normal except for that little part about the sex.

But let's say a couple who were of the age of consent in an incestuous relationship who Both have jobs. Both have bills. Both own homes. Both drive cars. Both pay taxes. Both have fights. Both buy groceries. Both cook dinners. Both cut grass. Both have deep personal feelings of love and commitment for each other. Both have pets. Both put out garbage. Both shovel snow. Both watch TV. Both read. Both vote. Both may serve in the military. Both have families. Both ......

EVERYTHING heterosexuals do. They just happen to be closely related.

Today I did a little research on incest. What I discovered was astounding. I was unaware how many countries where there are no prohibitions on incest between consenting adults. And some of the laws are so loose that it gives the impression that many don't find it a problem.

Laws regarding incest - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Then I started to think about how we are a country of immigrants. If so many cultures worldwide accept incest, how much longer will it be before people start voting to remove the laws against it here in this country?
So I went and checked the status in the U.S. and sure enough the laws are loosening where almost half of the states now allow marriage to 1st cousins. And their laws considering it a crime have lessened in severity as well.

But the cherry on the sundae was an article about a story run on Nightline a couple of years ago about a law professor in political science at Columbia University was arrested on incest charges over a three year affair he was having with his adult daughter. By all counts it was consensual. But Professor of Law, David Epstein's lawyer's response to reporters was very interesting.......

"Epstein's lawyer, Matthew Galluzzo,

said that charges against his client were still "only allegations" that have not been proven.

"Academically, we are obviously all morally opposed to incest and rightfully so," he told ABCNews.com. "At the same time, there is an argument to be made in the Swiss case to let go what goes on privately in bedrooms."

"It's OK for homosexuals to do whatever they want in their own home," he said. "How is this so different? We have to figure out why some behavior is tolerated and some is not."
Switzerland Considers Legalizing Consensual Incest; Columbia Professor Accused of Sex With Daughter - ABC News

A very valid question on the part of the attorney. If homosexuals can why not consensual incest?

Well as the story goes, Professor Epstein pleaded guilty. But it was never reported by the MSM. (crickets) And he is still listed as a member of faculty at Columbia University. Oh and by the way, David Epstein was a left wing contributor to Huffington Post. Did some scathing attacks on Sarah Palin that were over the top.
HuffPo Contributor, Law Professor Pleads Guilty to Incest Charges | The American Pundit

By you and many others I was reamed for a better word for bringing up incest as the new frontier after same sex marriage and told my argument was a fallacy yada yada yada.

And because of redefining marriage, opens the doors for others to claim the same so called civil rights. For the gays it was first doing away with the laws of sodomy, and from there we now have Same Sex marriage. In the case of incest, the laws are already weakening in the states, how much longer till they are abolished just like the sodomy laws? And then the next step will be just like the gay movement, declare incest legitimate.
 
Last edited:
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

vesper said:
That all sounds very normal except for that little part about the sex.

But let's say a couple who were of the age of consent in an incestuous relationship who Both have jobs. Both have bills. Both own homes. Both drive cars. Both pay taxes. Both have fights. Both buy groceries. Both cook dinners. Both cut grass. Both have deep personal feelings of love and commitment for each other. Both have pets. Both put out garbage. Both shovel snow. Both watch TV. Both read. Both vote. Both may serve in the military. Both have families. Both ......

EVERYTHING heterosexuals do. They just happen to be closely related.

Today I did a little research on incest. What I discovered was astounding. I was unaware how many countries where there are no prohibitions on incest between consenting adults. And some of the laws are so loose that it gives the impression that many don't find it a problem.

Laws regarding incest - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Then I started to think about how we are a country of immigrants. If so many cultures worldwide accept incest, how much longer will it be before people start voting to remove the laws against it here in this country?
So I went and checked the status in the U.S. and sure enough the laws are loosening where almost half of the states now allow marriage to 1st cousins. And their laws considering it a crime have lessened in severity as well.

But the cherry on the sundae was an article about a story run on Nightline a couple of years ago about a law professor in political science at Columbia University was arrested on incest charges over a three year affair he was having with his adult daughter. By all counts it was consensual. But Professor of Law, David Epstein's lawyer's response to reporters was very interesting.......

"Epstein's lawyer, Matthew Galluzzo,

said that charges against his client were still "only allegations" that have not been proven.

"Academically, we are obviously all morally opposed to incest and rightfully so," he told ABCNews.com. "At the same time, there is an argument to be made in the Swiss case to let go what goes on privately in bedrooms."

"It's OK for homosexuals to do whatever they want in their own home," he said. "How is this so different? We have to figure out why some behavior is tolerated and some is not."
Switzerland Considers Legalizing Consensual Incest; Columbia Professor Accused of Sex With Daughter - ABC News

A very valid question on the part of the attorney. If homosexuals can why not consensual incest?

Well as the story goes, Professor Epstein pleaded guilty. But it was never reported by the MSM. (crickets) And he is still listed as a member of faculty at Columbia University. Oh and by the way, David Epstein was a left wing contributor to Huffington Post. Did some scathing attacks on Sarah Palin that were over the top.
HuffPo Contributor, Law Professor Pleads Guilty to Incest Charges | The American Pundit

By you and many others I was reamed for a better word for bringing up incest as the new frontier after same sex marriage and told my argument was a fallacy yada yada yada.

And because of redefining marriage, opens the doors for others to claim the same so called civil rights. For the gays it was first doing away with the laws of sodomy, and from there we now have Same Sex marriage. In the case of incest, the laws are already weakening in the states, how much longer till they are abolished just like the sodomy laws? And then the next step will be just like the gay movement, declare incest legitimate.
Click to expand...

it is still a factually fallacy because gay marriage wouldnt open up the door to it anymore than hetero marriage, what don you get?
there is ZERO precedence for gay marriage thet lends itself to incest and any fallacy one that is made up can also be used for hetero sex thats the point

so your open doors statement isd complete bs that cant be backed up by any facts at all

if you disagree by all means please provide facts showing how allowing gay marriage leads to your other examples and hetero marriage doesnt. i cant wait to read it because you will have nothing that doesn't get proven wrong.
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

Fisher said:
I don't support government involvement in marriage at all,
Click to expand...

I would bet money that you never once thought this before it became apparent that same-sex marriage was coming whether you like it or not.
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

Dragonfly said:
Homosexual relationships are normal and equal to traditional in every single solitary way with the smallest of exceptions that there are two of the same gender people in one, and opposite gender in the other.

Both have jobs. Both have bills. Both own homes. Both drive cars. Both pay taxes. Both have fights. Both buy groceries. Both cook dinners. Both cut grass. Both have deep personal feelings of love and commitment for each other. Both have pets. Both put out garbage. Both shovel snow. Both watch TV. Both read. Both vote. Both may serve in the military. Both have families. Both ......

EVERYTHING homosexuals do heterosexuals do. They just do a few things with a different gender.

What percentage of your overall life would you guesstimate is spent having sex? 5% maybe? Probably less.

So if you subtract the "icky sex with the same gender spouse" - there's absolutely NO difference between a gay marriage and a straight marriage.
Click to expand...

5% would be 1.2 hours a day, every day.

I got **** to do, man.
 
Ontologuy said:
When we ignore definitive propriety and thus disrespect it, we regress, and dumb ourselves down.
Click to expand...

Definitions of words change. Deal with it.

And by the way: no, marriage has not always been defined as between one man and one woman. It used to be any number of women, and it was really better described as "one man and his property." Because the wife was literal property being transferred from the father to the new husband. And then there was that "it's always been one man and one woman of the same race" aspect. (see, people made "they're changing my definition!" arguments against interracial marriage too)
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

vesper said:
That all sounds very normal except for that little part about the sex.

But let's say a couple who were of the age of consent in an incestuous relationship who Both have jobs. Both have bills. Both own homes. Both drive cars. Both pay taxes. Both have fights. Both buy groceries. Both cook dinners. Both cut grass. Both have deep personal feelings of love and commitment for each other. Both have pets. Both put out garbage. Both shovel snow. Both watch TV. Both read. Both vote. Both may serve in the military. Both have families. Both ......

EVERYTHING heterosexuals do. They just happen to be closely related.

Today I did a little research on incest. What I discovered was astounding. I was unaware how many countries where there are no prohibitions on incest between consenting adults. And some of the laws are so loose that it gives the impression that many don't find it a problem.

Laws regarding incest - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Then I started to think about how we are a country of immigrants. If so many cultures worldwide accept incest, how much longer will it be before people start voting to remove the laws against it here in this country?
So I went and checked the status in the U.S. and sure enough the laws are loosening where almost half of the states now allow marriage to 1st cousins. And their laws considering it a crime have lessened in severity as well.

But the cherry on the sundae was an article about a story run on Nightline a couple of years ago about a law professor in political science at Columbia University was arrested on incest charges over a three year affair he was having with his adult daughter. By all counts it was consensual. But Professor of Law, David Epstein's lawyer's response to reporters was very interesting.......

"Epstein's lawyer, Matthew Galluzzo,

said that charges against his client were still "only allegations" that have not been proven.

"Academically, we are obviously all morally opposed to incest and rightfully so," he told ABCNews.com. "At the same time, there is an argument to be made in the Swiss case to let go what goes on privately in bedrooms."

"It's OK for homosexuals to do whatever they want in their own home," he said. "How is this so different? We have to figure out why some behavior is tolerated and some is not."
Switzerland Considers Legalizing Consensual Incest; Columbia Professor Accused of Sex With Daughter - ABC News

A very valid question on the part of the attorney. If homosexuals can why not consensual incest?

Well as the story goes, Professor Epstein pleaded guilty. But it was never reported by the MSM. (crickets) And he is still listed as a member of faculty at Columbia University. Oh and by the way, David Epstein was a left wing contributor to Huffington Post. Did some scathing attacks on Sarah Palin that were over the top.
HuffPo Contributor, Law Professor Pleads Guilty to Incest Charges | The American Pundit

By you and many others I was reamed for a better word for bringing up incest as the new frontier after same sex marriage and told my argument was a fallacy yada yada yada.

And because of redefining marriage, opens the doors for others to claim the same so called civil rights. For the gays it was first doing away with the laws of sodomy, and from there we now have Same Sex marriage. In the case of incest, the laws are already weakening in the states, how much longer till they are abolished just like the sodomy laws? And then the next step will be just like the gay movement, declare incest legitimate.
Click to expand...

Oh my god, you're right. Legitimizing heterosexuality leads to legitimizing incest.
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

Dragonfly said:
So, other than the actual sex part - what's different between a gay relationship and a straight relationship????

Because everything else is the same.

And sex makes up a very small portion of life.

So the differences between the two are minuscule unless you're trying to make something bigger than it really is.

So tell us, what's different?
Click to expand...

One difference would be the ability to procreate, and further the species.
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

j-mac said:
One difference would be the ability to procreate, and further the species.
Click to expand...

Homosexuals aren't infertile.

And wouldn't this logic of yours be used to annul marriages of infertile couples? Once a woman hits menopause, marriage over?
 
Deuce said:
Definitions of words change. Deal with it.

And by the way: no, marriage has not always been defined as between one man and one woman. It used to be any number of women, and it was really better described as "one man and his property." Because the wife was literal property being transferred from the father to the new husband. And then there was that "it's always been one man and one woman of the same race" aspect. (see, people made "they're changing my definition!" arguments against interracial marriage too)
Click to expand...

The truth is somewhere between women as chattel and interracial marriage. :roll:

So why don't we just limit it to western civilization in relatively modern times, say, the past few hundred years and the great-great-great grandparents of our great-great-great grandparents?
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

Deuce said:
Homosexuals aren't infertile.
Click to expand...

True, I should have included "with each other".....Thanks for pointing that out.
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

j-mac said:
True, I should have included "with each other".....Thanks for pointing that out.
Click to expand...

So annul the marriage once a woman hits menopause, then?
 
nota bene said:
The truth is somewhere between women as chattel and interracial marriage. :roll:

So why don't we just limit it to western civilization in relatively modern times, say, the past few hundred years and the great-great-great grandparents of our great-great-great grandparents?
Click to expand...

Oh, so once you got marriage defined the way you want, no more changes? That's it?

And, um, interracial marriage bans are a lot more recent than you think.
 
Deuce said:
Oh, so once you got marriage defined the way you want, no more changes? That's it?

And, um, interracial marriage bans are a lot more recent than you think.
Click to expand...

not to mention great great great grandfather? doesnt that have the potential to go back to slaver and women had no rights? just saying thats a horrendous argument

and your other point about interracial bans, yes you are correct the ban ended in 1967 when my parent werent adult so forget by great great great granfather
 
Deuce said:
Definitions of words change. Deal with it.
Click to expand...
Marriage is and always has been "between a man and a woman as husband and wife".

That's reality.

Anything other than that is/was simply not a "marriage".


Deuce said:
And by the way: no, marriage has not always been defined as between one man and one woman. It used to be any number of women, and it was really better described as "one man and his property." Because the wife was literal property being transferred from the father to the new husband.
Click to expand...
If there is one man and 10 women, that's either 10 separate marriages or not a marriage.

It really is that simple.


Deuce said:
And then there was that "it's always been one man and one woman of the same race" aspect. (see, people made "they're changing my definition!" arguments against interracial marriage too)
Click to expand...
If a culture restricted marriages such that people of different races were not allowed to marry, that did not in any way change what marriage is and always has been: between a man and a woman as husband and wife.

Marriages that never happened (inter-racial marriages) in a culture are meaningless.

What's meaningful is the marriages that did happen, in that, no matter what the mix or lack thereof racially in the marriage, if said relationship is "between a man and a woman as husband and wife" then it was still a marriage, and if it wasn't, then it wasn't.

Again, it really is that simple.

Activists and other ideologues are compelled with creating the quick-fix oxymoronic "gay marriage" reference of marriage to allow SS couples.

But, of course, that doesn't make it any more accurately correct to call same-sex relationships a "marriage" than it does to allow cats to be included in a dog show and still call it a "dog show".

The ludicrousness of referencing a SS couple's relationship as a "marriage" is simply that.

"homosexual marriage" or "Homarriage" would be a more accurate term.
 
Major_Alan_G._Roger_at_Same-Sex_Wedding_Ceremony.jpg

Hey look a couple getting MARRIED!
 
Ontologuy said:
Marriage is and always has been "between a man and a woman as husband and wife".

That's reality.

Anything other than that is/was simply not a "marriage"..
Click to expand...

This is both unhistorical and tautological, so I give you credit for two fallacies in one.
 
Ontologuy said:
Marriage is and always has been "between a man and a woman as husband and wife".

That's reality.

Anything other than that is/was simply not a "marriage".



If there is one man and 10 women, that's either 10 separate marriages or not a marriage.

It really is that simple.



If a culture restricted marriages such that people of different races were not allowed to marry, that did not in any way change what marriage is and always has been: between a man and a woman as husband and wife.

Marriages that never happened (inter-racial marriages) in a culture are meaningless.

What's meaningful is the marriages that did happen, in that, no matter what the mix or lack thereof racially in the marriage, if said relationship is "between a man and a woman as husband and wife" then it was still a marriage, and if it wasn't, then it wasn't.

Again, it really is that simple.

Activists and other ideologues are compelled with creating the quick-fix oxymoronic "gay marriage" reference of marriage to allow SS couples.

But, of course, that doesn't make it any more accurately correct to call same-sex relationships a "marriage" than it does to allow cats to be included in a dog show and still call it a "dog show".

The ludicrousness of referencing a SS couple's relationship as a "marriage" is simply that.

"homosexual marriage" or "Homarriage" would be a more accurate term.
Click to expand...

See, you're doing this silly thing where you decide that changing the racial aspect didn't count as a definition change but changing the gender aspect is a definition change. It's a completely arbitrary line you're drawing in a silly effort to... do what, exactly? Create a separate but equal legal union definition for homosexuals?

Surely you recognize the problems with anything of that nature: Separate but equal is inherently unequal. It attaches a government-approved stigma where those people aren't good enough to use our [schools|word]. So, what justifies this? The fact that some people really want to make sure the gays don't use their word?
 
head of joaquin said:
This is both unhistorical and tautological, so I give you credit for two fallacies in one.
Click to expand...




Marriage is whatever the government that controls the area in which it takes place says it is.




"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll
 
Deuce said:
See, you're doing this silly thing where you decide that changing the racial aspect didn't count as a definition change but changing the gender aspect is a definition change.
Click to expand...
Actually, it's you who is doing the silly thing by saying that "marriage is and always has been between a man and a woman of the same race as husband and wife"! :shock:

As we all reasonably know, what a marriage is from the get-go over 12,000 years ago and remains so today is fundamentally between a man and a woman as husband and wife.

Nothing more, nothing less.

It is you who is trying to interject something into the globally time-honored reality of marriage that does not globally apply.


Deuce said:
It's a completely arbitrary line you're drawing in a silly effort
Click to expand...
No .. but that's clearly what you are doing. :shock:


Deuce said:
to... do what, exactly? Create a separate but equal legal union definition for homosexuals?
Click to expand...
Your assessment here, that using "homosexual marriage" or "homarriage" as the term to apply to SS-couples' committed romantic domestic partnership civil unions is a violation of "separate but equal" is simply false, as your assumption fails with respect to the definitive propriety foundation that marriage is and always has been "between a man and a woman as husband and wife".

Thus your complaint is invalid.

Your complaint is the same as cat owners complaining that they can't appropriately and rationally call their cat shows "dog shows".

That cat owners have cat shows separate from dog show owners who have dog shows and that they call their cat shows "cat shows" is out of respect for definitive propriety, the foundation first considered before any assessment is made about discrimination.

Thus, in this example, it is not a violation of "separate but equal" that cat owners appropriately call their shows "cat shows" and not "dog shows".

Likewise, it is not a violation of "separate but equal" that SS-couples call their relationships "homosexual marriage" or "homarriage" because, by definition, SS-couples don't belong in a "marriage".

It really is that simple.


Deuce said:
Surely you recognize the problems with anything of that nature: Separate but equal is inherently unequal. It attaches a government-approved stigma where those people aren't good enough to use our [schools|word]. So, what justifies this? The fact that some people really want to make sure the gays don't use their word?
Click to expand...
All false.

I've just explained it to you again above.

Your complaint about "separate but equal" is false, running afoul of the definitive propriety test that is applied first.

Once definitive propriety is applied, it is clear that SS-couples' relationships don't qualify for the term "marriage".

Thus these relationships require a different term to satisfy the foundational definitive propriety test.
 
Ontologuy said:
Thus these relationships require a different term to satisfy the foundational definitive propriety test.
Click to expand...

"Cat" and "Dog" have inherent differences in meaning. Marriage does not. There's nothing intrinsic to marriage that requires the couple be of opposite sex. Your definition is arbitrary.

And further question:

Who cares? Why is the definition so critical to your cause? Why is it so important that we don't define marriage in a different way? Do you actually oppose same-sex marriage or is this literally arguing semantics over rights?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom