• 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!

Indiana won't recognize same-sex marriages

This whole thread is about procreation to get married and the undeniable fact is Gays can't do it.

No, the entire thread is about the legalization of SSM in Indiana and this has led to a discussion on the reasons some people find it unpalatable and thus try to come up with excuses not to validate it.

Procreation is clearly not grounds to prevent anyone from marrying since it is not currently a criteria for marriage....anywhere in this country on any terms.

So it's ridiculous to attempt to use it to prevent SSM.
 
SoCON crap. Lots of men have morals and value the Institution of Marriage, but are respectful of other opinions and don't hold their PERSONAL opinion as trump. :doh

Two dudes getting married doesn't lessen my marriage to my wife. Two heteros 'living in sin' doesn't damage my morals. A woman using birth control doesn't get in the way of my path to Salvation. A woman choosing to abort her fetus doesn't block my line of sight to Jesus.

SoCONs have enough on their plate trying to stay straight with Jesus to be leaning over anyone else's biscuit.... :peace
So well said, well worth repeating.
 
That is why you leffties are so clueless......Because someone does not want the definition of marriage changed in your narrow mind they are a bigot...........sad.
The narrow mind belongs to the one who can not see past his bigoted views.
 
Do you believe that being gay somehow disables one's reproductive organs?

Not with the opposite sex but with the same sex yes..........for instance how can two gay males produce a baby without outside help from a female???
 
No, the entire thread is about the legalization of SSM in Indiana and this has led to a discussion on the reasons some people find it unpalatable and thus try to come up with excuses not to validate it.

Procreation is clearly not grounds to prevent anyone from marrying since it is not currently a criteria for marriage....anywhere in this country on any terms.

So it's ridiculous to attempt to use it to prevent SSM.

I know what this thread is about for Gods sake I started it.
 
I know what this thread is about for Gods sake I started it.

So you forgot until we reminded you?

Besides even if that was your hidden agenda (marriage being based on procreation) you have yet to explain to any of us why, if that's the case, it's not a requirement for straight couples...and since it's not...then why it should be for gays.

But obviously we are happy to continue to explore that with you. Any time you manage to answer the question.
 
let's see. last USAToday poll said 2.3% of the poplutation is gay. So we're talking about 2300 people out of every 100,000. Only half of those care about getting "married", so that knocks it down to 1200. Half of those get "married" but neither partner is a monogamist at the time of the marriage. Meaning this issue really boils down to a few hundred people for every hundred thousand, yet many, MANY people are basing their vote entirely on this issue. Reckless, reckless voters who are ignoring the bigger issues for their first world made up issues. maddening
 
Not with the opposite sex but with the same sex yes..........for instance how can two gay males produce a baby without outside help from a female???

So what you are saying is gay people can have babies. Now that we have established that, we can work from that simple reality: gay people can and do have babies.
 
Not with the opposite sex but with the same sex yes..........for instance how can two gay males produce a baby without outside help from a female???

Why is this at all important? You've already admitted it's ok for infertile couples to marry. Two men cannot have children with each other naturally, so? It's ok for people to marry and not have children. You've admitted this.
 
Why is this at all important? You've already admitted it's ok for infertile couples to marry. Two men cannot have children with each other naturally, so? It's ok for people to marry and not have children. You've admitted this.


Duuuhhhh...


......... Isn't it obvious...


....................If someone can't have babies they can't get Civilly Married.






Please try to keep up.


>>>>>
 
let's see. last USAToday poll said 2.3% of the poplutation is gay. So we're talking about 2300 people out of every 100,000. Only half of those care about getting "married", so that knocks it down to 1200. Half of those get "married" but neither partner is a monogamist at the time of the marriage. Meaning this issue really boils down to a few hundred people for every hundred thousand, yet many, MANY people are basing their vote entirely on this issue. Reckless, reckless voters who are ignoring the bigger issues for their first world made up issues. maddening

Great post......I like your style.........Welcome to DP and our continuing fight against the whacky left.......Looking forward to your input.:applaud:cheers:
 
let's see. last USAToday poll said 2.3% of the poplutation is gay. So we're talking about 2300 people out of every 100,000. Only half of those care about getting "married", so that knocks it down to 1200. Half of those get "married" but neither partner is a monogamist at the time of the marriage. Meaning this issue really boils down to a few hundred people for every hundred thousand, yet many, MANY people are basing their vote entirely on this issue. Reckless, reckless voters who are ignoring the bigger issues for their first world made up issues. maddening

It does seem odd that so many conservatives are voting Republican because two dudes might sign a private legal contract, I agree.
 
Please explain to me how 2 gay men can deliver a baby or two lesbians (without any outside help can do it.

I don't have to because that is not a requirement of marriage. In fact, raising children, whether your own or not, is not a requirement of marriage.
 
How?????????????????

The same way my inlaws did, marrying a person who has kids. My father-in-law that I claim and I told I was honored to have as my father-in-law is not my husband's biological dad. But that doesn't matter. He is much more of a father to my husband than his biological father (who couldn't even take a few minutes to just meet his daughter-in-law or two grandsons when we lived within the same city limits of him for over 3 years) is.

There is also a method my friends used, IVF. Use sperm donation or a surrogate mother to make a baby. It is legal and done quite often, especially by married opposite sex couples who cannot procreate with each other.

There are tons of other options as well, including adoption. Or do you not think that people who adopt are "creating a family"?
 
What part of outside help do you not understand???????????

What part of "that doesn't matter" do you not understand? My inlaws formed a family the same way many gay couples do. Are my inlaws not a good enough family for you? (And no, they cannot make/have children that are both of theirs.) You are greatly insulting so many families, and not just those involving same sex couples, by refusing to see that families do not require two biological parents of any children they are raising to be considered a "family".
 
This whole thread is about procreation to get married and the undeniable fact is Gays can't do it.

No it's not. It's about legal recognition of same sex marriage in Indiana. We are talking about legal marriage here, which does not require procreation between the two getting married to be possible. Heck, no couple has any obligation to raise children or even want to raise children to get married in the state of Indiana.
 
I don't have to because that is not a requirement of marriage. In fact, raising children, whether your own or not, is not a requirement of marriage.


Your honor I rest my case.:2wave:
 
Because with a few exceptions marriage was established for a man and woman who could.

But you've already admitted that it's ok for people who can't procreate to marry each other. And you're admitting it again in this post, those "exceptions."
 
I don't have to because that is not a requirement of marriage. In fact, raising children, whether your own or not, is not a requirement of marriage.

If our whole population was gay in short order we would cease to exist........
 
But you've already admitted that it's ok for people who can't procreate to marry each other. And you're admitting it again in this post, those "exceptions."

Yes with one caveat male and female.
 
Back
Top Bottom