• 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!

Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM[W:95]

Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

sawyerloggingon said:
All well and good but I'm talking about America here.
Click to expand...

Well what you said is

Quote Originally Posted by sawyerloggingon View Post
The slippery slope is when you change the fundamental established meaning of the word marriage. Marriage has always been a union between a man and a woman and when you alter that to be a man and a man, a woman and a woman you have taken a huge step down that slippery slope. From that point everyone with a relationship other than the traditional one will demand to be allowed to marry. Slippery slope, camels nose under the tent, call it what you will but marriage will be under constant assault.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

tererun said:
America did not invent marriage, and if you want tradition you have to go back to all traditions. BTW if you are just looking at america there is no way the government can respect the religious definitions of marriage by denying couples of legally consenting age marriage based on biblical rules.
Click to expand...

You misunderstand me. From the beginning I said I personally don't care one way or the other but the fact is once you start down this path with gay marriage you don't know where it will end. If you think all consenting adults should be able to marry that is fine but realize you are drastically changing the entire concept of marriage to this point in US history.
 
Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

AGENT J said:
translation: you go nothing, thanks i knew that
Click to expand...

You're still not getting it, I don't care if you agree with me or how off base you are in your opinions. Altering the posts of others is a no-no, stop it.
 
Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

sawyerloggingon said:
I'm all for giving them all legal rights but if you let them get married you fundamentally change the meaning of the word. There is no denying that.
Click to expand...

Actually, no you do not. You do not change the legal contract one bit. Since the legal contract only specifies ghender out of tradition and not because gender has a role in the rules of the contract it is simple just to add two people of the same gender to the contract. Even the religious terms of marriage are not changed as per their churches as they existed separately before and no religious marriage is held as valid over any other. So nothing actually changes aside from what certain people view marriage as, and since the definition does not depend on the individual for legal and communication purposes in society at large, there is no legitimate change for society, just for those who don't know the meaning of the word anyway.
 
Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

tererun said:
Oh, so you do recognize the slippery slopes are not connected. BTW polygamists are not the next to ask for marriage since they have been demanding it for much longer than gays have. You do remember mittens romnifeller from last election? Word has it his parents were polygamists who were in this religion with other polygamists who fought against a ban on polygamy and felt so strongly about it they went to mexico so they could practice it. In other words, the gays are the next ones after polygamists to ask for marriage rights. The polygamists never stopped, but they might feel empowered to ask more often if gay marriage is recognized.
Click to expand...

Mormons were the only ones who "demanded it" as you say but they were quickly put in their place and I have seen no big movement to reinstitute polygamy in modern times.
 
Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

clownboy said:
No equal rights are not entitlements. But this whole gay marriage thing is. And you join Agent J in not knowing what you're talking about. I have no anger against gay, straight, or sideways folks - never have.
Click to expand...

This is the final phase in "you people's" discrimination against gays. You can pretend "I'm all for them except" all you want but it won't change anything. Just let it go, its ok.
 
Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

Gays, then more than 2 people...

Well, we know where it's gonna end up.

 
Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

tererun said:
Actually, no you do not. You do not change the legal contract one bit. Since the legal contract only specifies ghender out of tradition and not because gender has a role in the rules of the contract it is simple just to add two people of the same gender to the contract. Even the religious terms of marriage are not changed as per their churches as they existed separately before and no religious marriage is held as valid over any other. So nothing actually changes aside from what certain people view marriage as, and since the definition does not depend on the individual for legal and communication purposes in society at large, there is no legitimate change for society, just for those who don't know the meaning of the word anyway.
Click to expand...

I agree that tradition is the key word here. Hundreds of years of tradition make marriage between one man and one woman a societal norm.
 
Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

ttwtt78640 said:
1.)The definition of a gay and a polygamist are both based on strong personal preference.
2.) I understand your opinion that keeping the two partner limit is "fundamental" to a marriage "partnership", but why is that not true of a business "partnership"?
3.) The point is that once a strong personal preference requires that the state present a compelling state interest to justify the "inequality" of the law, that makes a polygamy ban a tough thing to justify, especially since it is a much more popular form of marriage than SSM is worldwide.
Click to expand...

1.) no, 100% false no where in law or precedence is that established at all. that the point you are missing. and even in science/nature/biology this is not true. One is a sexual orientation and the other is a simple want.
2.) you clearly dont understand anything because i never said that or even suggested it
3.) see #1
and also see my statements to you previously about BANS, bands would give them power but that would have nothing to to with gay marriage it would be about the ban.
 
Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

clownboy said:
1.)You're still not getting it, I don't care if you agree with me
2.) or how off base you are in your opinions.
3.) Altering the posts of others is a no-no, stop it.
Click to expand...

1.) uhm who said you cared? i certainly didnt
2.) i didnt really discuss opinions with you i was talkign about facts
2.) im not altering your posts in that sense, im numbering your points and replying directly to them
 
Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

sawyerloggingon said:
You misunderstand me. From the beginning I said I personally don't care one way or the other but the fact is once you start down this path with gay marriage you don't know where it will end. If you think all consenting adults should be able to marry that is fine but realize you are drastically changing the entire concept of marriage to this point in US history.
Click to expand...

I did note that polygamy itself would change the legal definition of marriage because partnership contract would not readily apply to more than two people. From a legal standpoint we would have to have a way of determining legal status in a domestic group that was more than two people. That still does not actually change marriage for people in a partnership, or the definition of any religious marriage. You are trying to tell us Joe Redneck's definition of marriage is so damn important we cannot tell him to suck it up and grow a brain. I don't see any reason to tell johnny the faggot he cannot marry his lover because Joe Redneck is too stupid to wrap his mind around the idea of two dudes getting married. Let Joe get a tutor, and who the hell cares about the slope?

Why do we always call it a slippery slope like we are sliding down it? We damned sure did slide down a slope to banning marriage. There was no gender specifications on marriage in most places and we slid down the slope to having those specifications. We slid down the slope to taking people's rights to enter into a civil contract with anyone of consenting age they wanted to away. We are climbing this slope to the next plateau, and if there is a further climb we need to make uphill so some consenting age polygamists can go make their life better by marrying each other then we should climb further because it sucks to be denied marriage and the benefits of family contracts and the protections your family gets from them simply because of some selfish religious nutbars.
 
Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

sawyerloggingon said:
I'm all for giving them all legal rights but if you let them get married you fundamentally change the meaning of the word. There is no denying that.
Click to expand...

yes there is because its simply not true.

was letting black legally be a person change the word? nope it was just granting equal rights. did letting women vote change the word? again nope. How about letting interracial couples marry? nope again
 
Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

tererun said:
I did note that polygamy itself would change the legal definition of marriage because partnership contract would not readily apply to more than two people. From a legal standpoint we would have to have a way of determining legal status in a domestic group that was more than two people. That still does not actually change marriage for people in a partnership, or the definition of any religious marriage. You are trying to tell us Joe Redneck's definition of marriage is so damn important we cannot tell him to suck it up and grow a brain. I don't see any reason to tell johnny the faggot he cannot marry his lover because Joe Redneck is too stupid to wrap his mind around the idea of two dudes getting married. Let Joe get a tutor, and who the hell cares about the slope?

Why do we always call it a slippery slope like we are sliding down it? We damned sure did slide down a slope to banning marriage. There was no gender specifications on marriage in most places and we slid down the slope to having those specifications. We slid down the slope to taking people's rights to enter into a civil contract with anyone of consenting age they wanted to away. We are climbing this slope to the next plateau, and if there is a further climb we need to make uphill so some consenting age polygamists can go make their life better by marrying each other then we should climb further because it sucks to be denied marriage and the benefits of family contracts and the protections your family gets from them simply because of some selfish religious nutbars.
Click to expand...

HEY, who are you calling Joe Redneck? :lol: The fact is most Americans are for legal rights for gays in a relationship but not for gay marriage, redneck or not.
 
Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

You know, i would never expect places like Iowa or NM to allow this before New Jersey, but that's politics for you. One asshole governor vetoing equal rights in a state that's 75% in favor. Where are the cries of "liberty dies" and "activist governor" from the right wing on this? Oh right, that logic only applies when it gets them what they want.
 
Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

AGENT J said:
yes there is because its simply not true.

was letting black legally be a person change the word? nope it was just granting equal rights. did letting women vote change the word? again nope. How about letting interracial couples marry? nope again
Click to expand...

Ok now you are just being stupid. Yes giving blacks and women the vote changed the world. If only white males voted we would be a Republican run country and the democrats would be very minor players. Whether you think that is good, bad or indifferent it did in fact change the world.
 
Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

sawyerloggingon said:
1.)Ok now you are just being stupid. Yes giving blacks and women the vote changed the world. If only white males voted we would be a Republican run country and the democrats would be very minor players. Whether you think that is good, bad or indifferent it did in fact change the world.
Click to expand...

more failed insults. we are not discussing the world im asking if it change the word voter? no it factually did not
nice deflection, reframming and moving of the goal post but it failed, my points stand and your previous post was wrong.
 
Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

AGENT J said:
more failed insults. we are not discussing the world im asking if it change the word voter? no it factually did not
nice deflection, reframming and moving of the goal post but it failed, my points stand and your previous post was wrong.
Click to expand...

My mistake, I thought you said world not word. You know you're not a lot of fun to debate, such an angry young man.
 
Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

sawyerloggingon said:
Personally I don't care much about the gay marriage issue one way or the other but it does raise a question. If gays can marry who or what is next, should we start with making polygamy legal? If anyone can marry anyone why can't anyone marry multiple people? Why not one man and two women or even two women and a man or..... use your imagination. Once you start messing around with "marriage" where does it end?
Click to expand...

If you make heterosexual marriage acceptable, soon pedophilia will be acceptable. Slippery slope, man.
 
Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

sawyerloggingon said:
My mistake, I thought you said world not word. You know you're not a lot of fun to debate, such an angry young man.
Click to expand...
no problem mistakes happen, lord knows ive made my share. Admitting it shows integrity


not angry and not young LOL
and usually i use LOLs or smiles to simulate my emotion but i was asked by mods to tone it down as a favor because of a rampant complainer who stalks my posts so they dont have to hear him cry all the time

for me its actually impossible to get emotional here besides laughter, im just no wired that way, its a message board
 
Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

sawyerloggingon said:
I'm all for giving them all legal rights but if you let them get married you fundamentally change the meaning of the word. There is no denying that.
Click to expand...

How is allowing all persons rights prevent you from exercising your rights? Sorry, your comment,,,changing meaning doesn't work against you personally,
 
Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

sawyerloggingon said:
And this guy actually flies a plane?
Click to expand...

This guy takes everything literally :lamo

Wait a minute. Gay marriage is a slippery slope but straight marriage isn't? How about interracial marriage, was that a slippery slope? How about making it so women were equal partners instead of literal property of the husband? Was that a slippery slope?

Why is this change in marriage the final straw? Why does this mean anything goes?
 
Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

sawyerloggingon said:
Personally I don't care much about the gay marriage issue one way or the other but it does raise a question. If gays can marry who or what is next, should we start with making polygamy legal? If anyone can marry anyone why can't anyone marry multiple people? Why not one man and two women or even two women and a man or..... use your imagination. Once you start messing around with "marriage" where does it end?
Click to expand...

It should end when consenting adults can all arrange their relationships as they see fit.
 
Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

clownboy said:
You can stop crying in yer soup, the rest of us have given up and pretty much said goodbye to the America we knew and loved. Screw it, just give us the "free" stuff, the experiment that was the United STATES is done.
Click to expand...

If you want to have a "free stuff" conversation, there are PLENTY of threads here for that. The only topic in this conversations is one of your fellow Americans being afforded the rights that are supposed to be inalienable. I find it strange how the people (and I'm not referring to you specifically as I don't know your post history well enough) who are most pro constitution seem to be the same ones who are against equal rights for all. (kinda a big part of our founding, last I checked.)
 
Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

AGENT J said:
1.) uhm who said you cared? i certainly didnt
2.) i didnt really discuss opinions with you i was talkign about facts
2.) im not altering your posts in that sense, im numbering your points and replying directly to them
Click to expand...

Reported and yes, you are altering my posts. I'll ask you again to cease. If you wish to continue numbering your own, fine, but leave the posts of others alone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom