• 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!

Record Support for Gay Marriage[W:162:334]

Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Marriage is about faith, family, and children. Always has been, always will be.

Doesn't mean you have to have kids and or believe in God, but there really isn't a lot of point to it otherwise. Just live together. I realize some couples can't, or decide not to, have children, but that is far the exception.

I consider very few marriages to actually be marriages anyway. People these days rarely take it seriously for all that it implies.

Cool. Aside from your personal opinions of most marriages....how about the hypocrisy of all the fornicators and adulterers that are allowed to marry? Religious people werent all up in arms trying to prevent that and the Bible puts those sins at the same level as 'laying with a man,' no better, no worse.

Or how about all the felons...in jail allowed to marry? Or the people of different faiths and NO faith? All allowed to marry.

Gays have kids, gays have families...naturally, and by adoption. Lots of straight married couples CHOOSE to do neither.

So...tell me again why gays should be excluded without looking like a hypocrite.

It's not about the "composition" of the marriage to the state....as you said, it means many things to many people. It's ABOUT a legal contract with benefits and privileges that ALL these others...felons, atheists, child-free couples...GET to have and gays are still denied. For no good reason that I have seen.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

I'm not threatened. Why in the world would I be threatened by gay people? LOL

I just don't take it seriously. Not out of anger or disgust, just out of being naturally dismissive of it all. It's silly, and I'm not much for silliness most of the time.

btw, I do see this a civil rights issue.

I'm not gay. We didnt care about getting married and chose not to have kids. Marriage is not a big deal to me at all. As a matter of fact, I believe the state and fed govts should stay out of it completely. But that's not going to happen.

So then I believe in being fair and treating other human beings equably. This is a civil rights issue and I dont want people looking back at my generation some day and the most generous thing they can say on this issue is, 'they were ignorant,' just like we do of the previous generations that treated blacks and women as 2nd class citizens.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Lots of straight married couples dont have kids. So I guess they are the same as gay couples.

Lots of them don't have kids, and barring a health problem, that is a choice that is made in their marriage. Gay couples, no choice. Sounds different to me, but I am able to comprehend facts, I am not a liberal. But oh, it just would feel so good if a gay man could conceive a child! But, in that case, we wouldn't be having this discussion. That's Fantasy Island.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Lots of them don't have kids, and barring a health problem, that is a choice that is made in their marriage. Gay couples, no choice. Sounds different to me, but I am able to comprehend facts, I am not a liberal. But oh, it just would feel so good if a gay man could conceive a child! But, in that case, we wouldn't be having this discussion. That's Fantasy Island.

LOL....you have no idea. There are many gay men and women who have their own biological children. That may surprise you, but it happens all the time. I'll leave it to you to figure out the details. I'm sure with some thought you can figure it out.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage[W:162]

The right to marry someone of the same sex. I dont have it nor do i want it. Its retarded.

yes it is retarded to say that's a special right discriminating against a couple based on gender when a persons gender has no bearing on the requirements of marriage is senseless

yes it is retorted to limit gay people to marriage with someone of the other gender as they don't want it and don't have the choice of marriage to the consenting unclosely related adult adult of their choice

yes it is retarded to use the same kind of argument a racist would use against interracial marriage to say that gay marriage is retarded

The right to marry someone of a different race. I don't have it nor do i want it. Its retarded.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

So considering that men and women are different exactly how is the marriage between two people of the same sex the same as a marriage between people of the opposite sex? This should be fun.

It's one thing to say it's a human right to get married, but it's another to ignore innate differences in the sexes.

Everyone is different from everyone else. No two people are the same. Generalizations do your argument no good here unless you can show how that difference will actually come into a relevant play when it comes to the actual laws associated with marriage, spouses, etc. Is a man only able to legally make decisions on life or death for a woman but not another man? Can a woman not inherit another woman's property? Can only a man be named under a woman's insurance? Can only wives grieve at the graves of their inlaws? There is no difference in the sexes that prevents them from upholding all the legal obligations of a marriage contract or from gaining the legal privileges rights of the legal marriage. Nothing in marriage requires a difference of the sexes.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Yeah, except that wouldn't make the marriage itself the same. That would just make their reasons for entering into the marriage the same. I'm not judging the marriage as good or bad, but just saying there is very little chance all things considered the marriage is the same.

No two marriages are ever going to be the same, no matter who it is between. But there is nothing that makes same sex marriages legally non-viable.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage[W:162]

Nothing. They only want the exact same thing as other married couples. So most of us would like to know what the big deal is...why there are objections. Nothing special about it.

What is 'unequal' about it?

They want to make children? The main reason for marriage is so the state knows who owns what. Not so two people who supposedly love each other can live together for benefits
Why not allow polygamy? Why cant I marry a pig? And dont tell me because it cant consent. It doesnt consent when I eat bacon. It wont hurt anyone if i do.[/QUOTE]

you can assign property in a gay marriage like you could for a hetero sexual one

marriage to a pig or to multiple people is not exactly like some hetero sexual marriages that we allow homosexual marriages are

you cant scare people away from gay marriage by running out of reasons to objecting to it and then pretending your not able to find any reasons to object to something else

its like your saying, O no! I=If we have gay marriage we must allow these other things, because I cant come up with a sensible reason to stop them either. Gosh we gots to ban the gay marriage now!
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

LOL....you have no idea. There are many gay men and women who have their own biological children. That may surprise you, but it happens all the time. I'll leave it to you to figure out the details. I'm sure with some thought you can figure it out.

You think that strengthens your argument? It just adds another disturbing layer.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage[W:162]

So lets anyone marry anyone and anything they like. Why the hell not. It wont effect me.

Besides gays have always been allowed to marry. Its about the state recognizing it so they can get benefits, I dont want heterosexual marriages getting any either. I want the state out of marriage.

well till that happens can you drop the gay marriage means anything must go bull **** and just let them have equality in peace till this hole state related marriage thing is over?
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

You can discuss something without it being "into your crosshairs."

I did go to the gun range yesterday and put some paper targets in my crosshairs.

but you cant avoid being a hypocrite if you deny marriage to some couples on the basis of their ability to have kids and then don't do the same to others
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

What a bunch of overstated, self-absorbed, codependent psychobabble.

They're not "barred". You can't be barred from something that can't be by basic definition. We're twisting the definition of a word to placate them so they can play pretend. Nothing more. Doesn't change what real marriage is.

And with that, I've spent WAY too much time on this ridiculous subject the past 24 hours. Hasta la vista.

no that's bull ****

denying marge to couples based on gender is not equal protection under the law the same as if you tried that bull **** based on the race of a couple
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage[W:162]

Not the same thing in the least. They fit the laws but were denied marriage despite that.

gay couples fit the laws they meet every requirement you have for a hetero sexual couple 2 people not to closely related can give legal consent to the marriage

its obvious reproductive potential is not an issue when theirs no requirement to have kids or to be able to have kids of your own

you don't even have to stick a penis into a vagina so

everything you need to do they can do as well
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Lots of them don't have kids, and barring a health problem, that is a choice that is made in their marriage. Gay couples, no choice. Sounds different to me, but I am able to comprehend facts, I am not a liberal. But oh, it just would feel so good if a gay man could conceive a child! But, in that case, we wouldn't be having this discussion. That's Fantasy Island.

Again, millions of gay people have NATURAL children. So you are the one in Fantasy Island territory.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

It is NOTHING like interracial marriage. Stop trying to paint and equate yourself as some sort of long-mistreated race of people that has endured struggles through history. It's dumb and illogical. You're just guys that prefer sex with other guys. That's it. You've never been forced to do hard labor or refused access to a university or disallowed from using a public bathroom.

its a lot like interracial marriage

gay couples cant get married because people who don't like homosexuality don't want them to

just like it was with black and white couples

and both racial minority's and homosexuals have to put up with a lot of ass holes

who could be violent who made laws against them


Sodomy laws in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

getting international for a bit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_homosexuals_in_Nazi_Germany_and_the _Holocaust

BBC News - Nigeria gays: 20 lashes for 'homosexual offences'
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

It is so blatantly pathetic and absurd to try and equate racial inequalities and interracial marriage to homosexuality.

It reminds me of when athletes say they're "going to war" with their teammates. No, no you're not going to war, but whatever floats your boat, Biff.

it makers perfect sense people who could Mary some people but not one another even though their both consenting adults who are not closely related by blood
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

My girlfriends uncle has been with his man for almost thirty years now and from what I can tell, very happy

now to be fair their not all that perverted because their gay

about on par with us lefty's ( handed that is kids left handed )
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

A society made up of only heterosexuals will survive. A society made up of only homosexuals will die out in short order. The natural vs the un-natural.

Flawed premise. No society is ever made up of one or the other. Plus, homosexuals can still make children. They just require outside help, that is completely available to them. They can hook up with other couples for the sole purpose of procreation, either having one couple raise the children/child or both couples have a say. There is IVF, sperm donations, and surrogacy. There would be a huge decline of abortions (abortions would mainly be used only for birth defects). Unwanted pregnancies in general would basically go away.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage[W:162]

Really? The law states marriage is between one man and one woman. It does not say of the same race. So interracial marriage fits the law while homosexual does not.

And do you have to be gay or in love to marry another man? Maybe i want to do it to get a mortgage i could not qualify for if I were not married.

ya the law made no mention of race accept for the ones that did

cant go changing laws just cause they don't have any rational justification an disincarnate against people

.....anymore I guess
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

your posts are a little hard core for my taste, but it does make me ponder what evolution and survival of the fittest would have to say about sexual relations with no chance of reproduction. The left is so busy using science as a weapon against religion; how about aiming that weapon at your own arguments.

Childless couples aid our species when it comes to survival of the fittest and ensuring children have enough resources available to reach reproductive age. Childless couples have more resources (for the most part) available to provide for parentless children, particularly when those children are related to one of the adults in the childless couple. This would be even more true prior to our current cultures.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage[W:162]

That is clearly unconstitutional as they are using race. Is homosexuality now a race? Can I tell you are homosexual just by looking at you? Is discrimination in any form unconstitutional?

Do you even have to love someone to marry them? This is a canard. Love is an emotion and nothing to base law upon. There are many reasons to marry love being only one of them.

their people under the protraction of the 14 amendment

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

You're so institutionally brainwashed with this topic, I'll just pass on the banter, pat you on the head, and ask you to run along. Good day.


Ad Hominem



"If a crazy serial killer who believes he is surrounded by Teletubbies argues that if you drop a ball, it'll fall to the ground, because gravity will pull the ball towards the Earth, is he wrong? Do the arguments become less valid because you think there's something wrong with the person behind the arguments? Will the ball start falling upwards from now on?"
—Deadpan Snarker Dendrophilian of YouTube

Refuting an argument by attacking some aspect of the person making it, rather than addressing the content of the argument itself. It can consist of an attack on the person making the argument; the source of their information; their circumstances; their previous position; or a discrepancy between their actions and their argument.
Ad hominem is very often mistakenly claimed in cases where an argument's opponent attacks its proponent in addition to presenting a valid counterargument. "You're stupid, therefore your argument is invalid" is an ad hominem; "your argument is invalid, therefore you're stupid" (or "Your argument is invalid and you're stupid") is not. Similarly, some people seem to think that Ad Hominem is necessarily abusive, which it isn't. "You've used the 'Four Terms' fallacy, you stupid idiot, therefore you're using faulty logic" is not Ad Hominem (although it might be Fallacy Fallacy if done badly). "Mike has clearly put a lot of thought into whether we should buy a pool, but he is a convicted felon" is.

Main/Ad Hominem - Television Tropes & Idioms
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

If it is indifference it is a callous one and unavoidably one must ask what kind of man can be so callous to not care about injustice to his fellow man? Indifference in this case is self defeating, because discrimination is not always perpetrated by only some people and always to others, we all become victims of it sooner or later, but I suspect that indifference is not the case here.

No, nature has not capacity for indifference.

Meaningless double talk. WE are the government.

That is just something you are hiding behind. In this case there is not need to support any rights ans they are not being threatened.

Actually you have proven the opposite.

But as you well know that is not the case. No one must provide anything. The individual is offering his property for sale to the public. If the individual does not wish to offer his property to sale to the public there are ways to do that too. The individual is making all the decisions and each one has its own pros and cons. We as a civilized society have established from precedents that certain rules must apply when one deals with the public and no one is asked or forced to deal with the public.

But no association comes into play either so this too is nothing more than an unfounded attempt to excuse bigotry and bigotry has been deemed detrimental to an orderly and civilized society.

You want to know the true meaning of liberty past all the bull****? It's means I can say **** you to anyone I feel like. I don't have to do business with you; I don't have to share my property with you; I don't have to associate with you; I don't have to be bothered with you at all. It means I can tell whomever I feel like to **** off for any damn reason I feel like telling them to **** off. It is my property and no one has the right to tell me I can't tell them to **** off when they want me to share it with them. It is my labor and service and no has the right to tell me I can't tell them to **** off when I don't wish to provide it to them. It is my association, and I can refuse whomever I feel like. Why? Because that is my right, and it my liberty to do with my life as I damn well please.
 
Last edited:
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

It's all based on politics and make believe. Surely you don't consider the current evolution of our legal system or government to have serious intellectual integrity anymore.

or you know reason and commons sense that's what it is based on
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

You think that strengthens your argument? It just adds another disturbing layer.

Theres nothing disturbing about it. Why are you threatened by it?
 
Back
Top Bottom