• We will be taking the forum down for maintenance at [3:30 PM CDT] - in 25 minutes. We should be down less than 1 hour.
  • 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!

Pa. gov: Gay marriage is like marriage of siblings

Bronson said:
Interracial marriage = man + woman ( doesn't change the definition of marriage)

Gay Sham/Pretend "Marriage" (Not) = man + ?

Not comparable. Oil and Water.

BTW a father marrying his adult son (for tax purposes/sex too consenting adults heh) should be legal if gay sham/pretend "marriage" (Not) is legal
Click to expand...

once again proving how uneducated you are on this topic, court cases already disagree with you
your post lose again to facts
 
Bronson said:
The notion that the definition of marriage = man + woman is the oldest notion of a tradition and definition of an institution in human history

Gay Math = 1 + 1 = 0
Click to expand...

gay marriage exsisted BC, please educated yourself on this topic otherwise your post will continue to fail and get destroyed by the majority of posters here
 
Mr.Nick said:
It's an odd analogy but makes sense from the fact that homosexuality is as abnormal as incest and not to mention the slippery slope gay marriage represents.... Hell, gay marriage by de facto discriminates against others in "taboo" relationships...

I don't think it takes a "conservative" to realize that... An intelligent person of any political affiliation (or no political affiliation at all) can see that...
Click to expand...

This is a slippery slope fallacy and it applies because other "taboo" relationships are not analogous to SSM, therefore there is no discrimination.
 
Mr.Nick said:
Just because you disagree doesn't make it not fact.... You just don't like it because you're partisan and take sides and don't give a **** what the rational counter argument is because you view it as a partisan political statement rather than a rational argument.

Gay marriage discriminates against cousins who want incestrial marriage, polygamy, marriage to pets or inanimate objects etc... what about them??? you going to discriminate against them?

No true ignorance is only focusing on one idea and ignoring the rest....
Click to expand...

No, this ridiculous position has been proven false many times. It is a silly slippery slope logical fallacy since the situations are not analogous. And since they are not analogous, there is no discrimination. But let's see if you know the difference between two women wanting to get married and an individual wanting to marry a houseplant. When you figure this out, you'll know why what you said above is invalid.
 
Mr.Nick said:
What sates are and the states that do are not entitled to their Tenth Amendment rights?
Click to expand...

They all are and what individual is not entitled to their rights?

A better question to ask is why you feel so authoritarian on this issue?
Click to expand...

Say what? you are promoting authoritarian via States rights over individual rights.
 
Mr.Nick said:
~snip~

So as I have previously stated - amend the Constitution if you want gay marriage, if that isn't possible petition the state...

My opinion on the issue really means nothing because I really don't care - I'm not an activist because it's really not a constitutional issue - and as a libertarian the constitution mans everything.
Click to expand...
The Federal constitution doesn't define marriage in either case, so I don't see how an amendment is necessary, what is it meant to amend? If you meant the state constitutions, that's different, but it's still a moot point; state constitutions are supposed to further protect the natural rights from the Federal constitution, they were never meant to limit natural rights.
Bronson said:
It doesn't need to be in The Constitution. By DESIGN, the Framers left social issues to be left to the state. All Founding Fathers believed homosexuality to be a deviant abomination. The concept of Gay Marriage was completely repulsive and alien to them.

Quick question:

How many Gay children can 2 gay men reproduce?
Click to expand...
Yup, because the Founding Fathers are the role models of America. (cough) (cough) Slaves (cough).

Reproduction is not a function of Marriage. You can have children without marriage, you can have marriage without children. They aren't connected, it's a really simple concept.
 
Mr.Nick said:
What sates are and the states that do are not entitled to their Tenth Amendment rights?

A better question to ask is why you feel so authoritarian on this issue?

several stats - you know this.

Why you have a problem with the Tenth Amendment? or are you a federalist sympathizer who believes the federal government is the end all and dictates civil liberties - that it's the federal government that allows us to have individual freedom??? You appear to be a collectivist that subscribes to that notion..

Maybe the general populace employs the local, county, state and federal government and we limit them -- they don't limit us.... Maybe when the Federal Government wants to make apont they send there COP SS storm troopers out?...
Click to expand...

10th Amendment rights of the state have been limited by the 14th Amendment for well over a hundred years now. Those who are all about states' rights need to start understanding this point. You cannot simply stomp all over individuals' rights because you have taken your tyrannies (of the majority) to smaller forms of government, the states.
 
Bronson said:
Quick question:

How many Gay children can 2 gay men reproduce?
Click to expand...

#1 Dozens and dozens. Being gay does not mean infertile. Gay men can donate sperm for implantation by a woman just like heterosexual men can.

#2 So if your assumption is that gay men produce gay children, then you are admitting that there is a biological component to homosexuality. (Which is a pretty dumb assumption since heterosexual couples produce homosexual children also.)


Bronson said:
Quick question:

How many Gay children can 2 gay men reproduce?
Click to expand...

Now, I've answered your question.

Your turn.

Name any state in the union that limits Civil Marriage to only couples able to conceive children together.

BTW - At least one state that I can think of requires couples to be infertle before they will allow them to Civilly Marry.



>>>>
 
WorldWatcher said:
Now, I've answered your question.

Your turn.

Name any state in the union that limits Civil Marriage to only couples able to conceive children together.

BTW - At least one state that I can think of requires couples to be infertle before they will allow them to Civilly Marry.

>>>>
Click to expand...

Actually 5 or 6 states have that as a limitation when it comes to first cousins. Arizona, Utah, Illinois, and Maine, and Indiana and Wisconsin seem to have the same thing but I guess have something else (?).

Here is the site I use for the info.

State laws and cousin marriage | Cousin Marriage Resources

The majority of these exceptions have an age that the woman has to be (generally above 55) or a written doctor's statement that one or both are infertile.
 
Isn't it hilariously hypocritical how most the vocal anti-ssm members are males, and how every single example they give about what's "wrong" with ssm revolves around male-male, and they NEVER EVER site female-female????

I smell fear. Nothing but fear.

You just know that they LOVE watching two girls "do stuff"... :lamo
 
davidtaylorjr said:
It's no different than incest.
Click to expand...

Very different than incest, particularly in the way the laws around marriage work when it comes to familial relationships or even how they work when it comes to how incestuous relationships are legally viewed (illegal in all but one state, RI being the exception) compared to same sex relationships (completely legal in all states).
 
Bronson said:
It doesn't need to be in The Constitution. By DESIGN, the Framers left social issues to be left to the state.
Click to expand...

They did, yet whenever a state decides that gay marriage is OK in their state, all you "Constitutionalists" fly off the handle.

All Founding Fathers believed homosexuality to be a deviant abomination. The concept of Gay Marriage was completely repulsive and alien to them
Click to expand...

Prove it. Let's see a quote from EVERY signer of the Declaration of Independence that says they believe homosexuality to be a deviant abomination. You said ALL of them, so let's see you prove it.
 
Bronson said:
All Founding Fathers believed homosexuality to be a deviant abomination.
Click to expand...

"I never will, by any act, word or deed bow to the religious shrine of intolerance." -- Thomas Jefferson
"Taste cannot be controlled by law. We must resist at all costs any attempt to regulate our individual freedoms and to legislate our personal moralities." -- Thomas Jefferson

Agnostic Thinking...: Thomas Jefferson Quotes...

Thomas Jefferson - not a Founding Father according to Bronson. :lamo
 
It's no secret that some people believe SSM is immoral. How is this 'news'?
 
Dragonfly said:
So unfortunate that there are people who actually think, believe, and vocalize absolute horse excrement like the above.

Truly sad.

Truly ignorant.
Click to expand...

Sorry but homosexuality is abnormal....

If homosexuality were normal than half the population would be gay or at least a considerable amount....

This is just factual...
 
rocket88 said:
"I never will, by any act, word or deed bow to the religious shrine of intolerance." -- Thomas Jefferson
"Taste cannot be controlled by law. We must resist at all costs any attempt to regulate our individual freedoms and to legislate our personal moralities." -- Thomas Jefferson

Agnostic Thinking...: Thomas Jefferson Quotes...

Thomas Jefferson - not a Founding Father according to Bronson. :lamo
Click to expand...

Since when is questioning or even dissent "intolerance."

If anything those who are pro-gay are intolerant to others ideas and opinions on the issue... Of course you believe your intolerance is somehow justified...

IMO, I don't even care enough about the issue to even draw an "intolerant" conclusion...

Besides, most people who spew words like "intolerance" don't even understand that tolerance is a 2-way street...
 
winston53660 said:
They all are and what individual is not entitled to their rights?



Say what? you are promoting authoritarian via States rights over individual rights.
Click to expand...

It's one thing to embrace your rights as an individual however it's another to shove your fringe views down other peoples throats then call them intolerant when they want nothing of it....

Being gay isn't the problem - the way homosexuality is being promoted IS the problem...

You act like everyone must accept homosexuality "or else you're an intolerant bigot."

I don't hate gays and I don't like gays, however gay activists piss me off considering the way they promote their agenda is obnoxious and down right childish and those are two qualities I have little respect for.... The way gay activists promote their agenda is no different than the way the WBC promotes their agenda - IMO the way homosexuals promote their "pride parades" is X rated with all the nudity and sexual innuendo.... I have no interest in seeing any of that - there are venues for that type of behavior and they certainly aren't on the streets of major cities.
 
Last edited:
douglas said:
The Federal constitution doesn't define marriage in either case, so I don't see how an amendment is necessary, what is it meant to amend? If you meant the state constitutions, that's different, but it's still a moot point; state constitutions are supposed to further protect the natural rights from the Federal constitution, they were never meant to limit natural rights.

Yup, because the Founding Fathers are the role models of America. (cough) (cough) Slaves (cough).

Reproduction is not a function of Marriage. You can have children without marriage, you can have marriage without children. They aren't connected, it's a really simple concept.
Click to expand...

Yet you get bent when situations like prop8 occur???

I suppose if the constitution was amended that would be the end of this entire debate now wouldn't it. Yet our congress want's nothing to do with gay marriage considering it's a Tenth Amendment issue and will continue to be a Tenth Amendment issue until the constitution has been amended with language directed as the issue itself.
 
roguenuke said:
10th Amendment rights of the state have been limited by the 14th Amendment for well over a hundred years now. Those who are all about states' rights need to start understanding this point. You cannot simply stomp all over individuals' rights because you have taken your tyrannies (of the majority) to smaller forms of government, the states.
Click to expand...

Yeah and the Fourteenth Amendment - not to mention the equal protection clause is vague at best and says absolutely NOTHING about gay marriage.
 
Mr.Nick said:
Sorry but homosexuality is abnormal....

If homosexuality were normal than half the population would be gay or at least a considerable amount....

This is just factual...
Click to expand...

haha good move, totally run from your destroyed statement and try to reframe like you just meant a NUMBERS issue.
Do you think anybody would fall for this type of dishonesty, like you just mean ratio abnormality?


nice try but we all know thats not what you meant you are just back pedaling now.

yes numbers wise homosexuality is abnormal just like being left handed, having blue eyes or being over 6ft. ALL ABNORMAL wow

Another post by you and another fail
 
Mr.Nick said:
Since when is questioning or even dissent "intolerance."

If anything those who are pro-gay are intolerant to others ideas and opinions on the issue... Of course you believe your intolerance is somehow justified...

IMO, I don't even care enough about the issue to even draw an "intolerant" conclusion...

Besides, most people who spew words like "intolerance" don't even understand that tolerance is a 2-way street...
Click to expand...

good point when are you gonna get on the two way streat, we factually are, you are not
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom