• 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!

Appeals court upholds laws against gay marriage in Michigan, 3 other states

The reverse is equally true; just because something is "natural" does not mean that it should be culturally accepted by a society. Personally, I favor allowing SSM as a state sanctioned relationship option (as well as some others), but I have no reason to get more than my one vote on the matter. Once we start down the path to what compelling state interest supports any "standard" then we are in for some serious time wasting.

I absolutely agree - which is why I strongly oppose government being in the marriage business and government incentives, benefits, tax allowances, related to government being in the marriage business. If society truly was fair and equitable, all individuals would be treated equally, regardless of their personal relationships/commitments.
 
So only a marriage license issued by government can determine the rights and responsibilities of two parties in a contract?

Those who enter into business and employment contracts should be clamouring for government to sanction their agreements with a magical piece of government paper.

Only a marriage being recognized by the government, some relationship type being recognized by the government can work with the current way our laws operate. The government deals with family recognition, ensuring that such relationships are given certain special protections, and this goes for any family relationship that is legally recognized.

Marriage is not simply a contract. It is a recognition of legal kinship, as I've said many times, which is akin to a birth certificate, and no one so far as shown any contract that could take the place of marriage that would provide all the same benefits, still be recognized by the government, and be as cheap if not cheaper than marriage when it comes to entering into it (if it is dissolved, it would be pretty much the same costs at least whether it is a marriage or just private contracts, which can be fought over).
 
Only a marriage being recognized by the government, some relationship type being recognized by the government can work with the current way our laws operate. The government deals with family recognition, ensuring that such relationships are given certain special protections, and this goes for any family relationship that is legally recognized.

Marriage is not simply a contract. It is a recognition of legal kinship, as I've said many times, which is akin to a birth certificate, and no one so far as shown any contract that could take the place of marriage that would provide all the same benefits, still be recognized by the government, and be as cheap if not cheaper than marriage when it comes to entering into it (if it is dissolved, it would be pretty much the same costs at least whether it is a marriage or just private contracts, which can be fought over).

So, in other words, the government has to be in the marriage business because government has so intruded in marriage and the marriage business that sane adults are apparently incapable of functioning without the government's magical piece of paper. Perhaps that's why marriage is in such trouble these days and far less respected than it once was.
 
I can't speak definitively, but I think it would be very abnormal, to use a term you like, for homosexuals to be "indoctrinating kids" into homosexuality. That would defy the logic of most homosexuals who believe they are genetically or naturally homosexual and not indoctrinated or brainwashed into same sex behaviour. Just as uniquely, there's a whole subclass of female who believes they can turn gay men straight - if a man is gay, he just hasn't met a sufficiently sexually talented female.

There are talking points and then there is reality. It is important not to confuse the two. It is important to homosexuals to try to argue that homosexuality is absolutely not a choice and yet it clearly CAN be and often HAS been a choice for a lot of people; people that actually have admitted that they became homosexual by choice.

I remember when there was a huge debate about how crossbows in archery season weren't any different than regular archery or "vertical bows" as the crossbow advocates started calling them. It was a lie but it was a lie with a purpose. The truth wouldn't have suited the agenda because admitting that crossbows are radically different and shoot a lot more like a gun than a bow and make it MUCH easier to take a deer than hunting with traditional equipment does..... well, it just wouldn't help them convince legislators to change the law to allow them, so you couldn't drag the truth out of them with a team of mules.

Now it's homosexual marriage and, again, the people with the agenda are careful about their talking points and words. And they're doing a bangup sales job because a lot of people are buying it. I suppose that's just working the system and I don't see a problem with people using the system to progress their agenda. It's how the world works. Do your best sales pitch and see who buys it. If enough buy it, we all get stuck with it. My message is "caveat emptor". I'm beginning to think that it's too late, though.
 
No. I'm arguing that people are different, and at this current time, people are more trusting of proof that someone is committed, particularly in a way that helps to protect both of their interests, as legal marriage does.

Or as domestic partnerships would. For the purpose of legal protection and trust that you are arguing, there's no difference.
 
If you can't refute it, trivialize it.

Excellent.

Well you know one of the definitions of homophobia: the fear you'll be treated as you/other dudes treat women

Not saying it was ok for them to do that, but come on, not every homosexual will be into you or treat you that way.
 
I absolutely agree - which is why I strongly oppose government being in the marriage business and government incentives, benefits, tax allowances, related to government being in the marriage business. If society truly was fair and equitable, all individuals would be treated equally, regardless of their personal relationships/commitments.

Sadly, that ship has sailed long ago. Gov't is in the control business as well as in the selling favors business. Simple laws that treat all equally minimize that control while complex laws allow for carefully targeted exceptions to be added, changed or deleted for the right amount of campaign cash. ;)
 
Or as domestic partnerships would. For the purpose of legal protection and trust that you are arguing, there's no difference.

If there is no difference between domestic partnership or marriage, then there is absolutely no reason to change it since those arguing against using the term "marriage" do not own the meaning of that word so then that is a waste of money and time to change it for any group or all just to appease some people.
 
There are talking points and then there is reality. It is important not to confuse the two. It is important to homosexuals to try to argue that homosexuality is absolutely not a choice and yet it clearly CAN be and often HAS been a choice for a lot of people; people that actually have admitted that they became homosexual by choice.

I remember when there was a huge debate about how crossbows in archery season weren't any different than regular archery or "vertical bows" as the crossbow advocates started calling them. It was a lie but it was a lie with a purpose. The truth wouldn't have suited the agenda because admitting that crossbows are radically different and shoot a lot more like a gun than a bow and make it MUCH easier to take a deer than hunting with traditional equipment does..... well, it just wouldn't help them convince legislators to change the law to allow them, so you couldn't drag the truth out of them with a team of mules.

Now it's homosexual marriage and, again, the people with the agenda are careful about their talking points and words. And they're doing a bangup sales job because a lot of people are buying it. I suppose that's just working the system and I don't see a problem with people using the system to progress their agenda. It's how the world works. Do your best sales pitch and see who buys it. If enough buy it, we all get stuck with it. My message is "caveat emptor". I'm beginning to think that it's too late, though.

I'm from the conservative school of "keep the government out of my wallet and out of my bedroom". In other words, government should be fiscally restrained and socially uninvolved. As a result, if government had no involvement in marriage, as per this thread's topic, there'd be no issue about gay marriage because it wouldn't have any benefit or status, vis-a-vis government operations.
 
The fact that some or even many need no encouragement isn't proof that recruitment isn't an important part of homosexual culture. But here's a homosexual who broke the code of silence on the subject.

Can We Please Just Start Admitting That We Do Actually Want To Indoctrinate Kids? / Queerty

What that article describes and you've been saying are not the same. Teaching kids that homosexuality *exists*, as the TN bill sought to outlaw, is NOT identical to "recruiting" kids to *be* homosexual, as you've been alleging.

A huge reason to educate on this is it's likely one or more of their classmates are gay, so the goal is to reduce bullying and a sense of alienation for those who are gay.

Whereas it seems many on the right wing are kosher with bullying and treating the gay kids like freaks. What kind of message does it send to make a subject taboo? Oh right, that it's so perverse even to discuss the topic will put everyone at risk. But what are we doing right now? Earnest discussion is a good thing!
 
Sadly, that ship has sailed long ago. Gov't is in the control business as well as in the selling favors business. Simple laws that treat all equally minimize that control while complex laws allow for carefully targeted exceptions to be added, changed or deleted for the right amount of campaign cash. ;)

I can't argue with that, but I can argue against it and will continue to argue against it. It's one of the reasons I would favour a flat tax or a concept similar to it. I strongly oppose government involvement in the personal lives of citizens.
 
Well you know one of the definitions of homophobia: the fear you'll be treated as you/other dudes treat women

Not saying it was ok for them to do that, but come on, not every homosexual will be into you or treat you that way.

Look, I completely understand why homosexuals would try to "recruit". I can't tell you how many I've heard tell me that they really want a "straight man", not another queer. It's strange as hell because if they could have them, they wouldn't really be straight men after all. But that's another story. The fact is that the GLBT community does widespread "recruiting". Straight people just call it "seduction", but people do it and normalizing homosexuality would help with that recruitment. The fact that so few homosexuals actually get married should be a clue that marriage itself isn't really the goal here. It is what it is and I don't really care what you or anyone else does sexually. That's your business. I'm just calling it like I see it and I don't see the point in creating the institution of homosexual marriage just for the sake of normalizing homosexuality.
 
The reverse is equally true; just because something is "natural" does not mean that it should be culturally accepted by a society. Personally, I favor allowing SSM as a state sanctioned relationship option (as well as some others), but I have no reason to get more than my one vote on the matter. Once we start down the path to what compelling state interest supports any "standard" then we are in for some serious time wasting.

Like more time wasting that affirmation action in college admission? Cause SCOTUS took that up 10 years ago, all over a few hundred spots at a handful of elite schools.

That millions of americans are homosexual alone makes it not "serious time wasting" in my view, though the argument could be made that to condone discrimination anywhere is to condone discrimination everywhere, or however that goes.
 
Thanks for the interesting discussion everyone - take care and have a good evening - goodnight.
 
What that article describes and you've been saying are not the same. Teaching kids that homosexuality *exists*, as the TN bill sought to outlaw, is NOT identical to "recruiting" kids to *be* homosexual, as you've been alleging.

A huge reason to educate on this is it's likely one or more of their classmates are gay, so the goal is to reduce bullying and a sense of alienation for those who are gay.

Whereas it seems many on the right wing are kosher with bullying and treating the gay kids like freaks. What kind of message does it send to make a subject taboo? Oh right, that it's so perverse even to discuss the topic will put everyone at risk. But what are we doing right now? Earnest discussion is a good thing!

I think there are better ways to reduce bullying than telling kids that there's nothing wrong with exploring homosexuality.
 
Look, I completely understand why homosexuals would try to "recruit". I can't tell you how many I've heard tell me that they really want a "straight man", not another queer. It's strange as hell because if they could have them, they wouldn't really be straight men after all. But that's another story. The fact is that the GLBT community does widespread "recruiting". Straight people just call it "seduction", but people do it and normalizing homosexuality would help with that recruitment. The fact that so few homosexuals actually get married should be a clue that marriage itself isn't really the goal here. It is what it is and I don't really care what you or anyone else does sexually. That's your business. I'm just calling it like I see it and I don't see the point in creating the institution of homosexual marriage just for the sake of normalizing homosexuality.

It just comes across as paranoid to me. If you're secure in your sexuality, what is there to fear? Try as some might, they'll never be able to make you suddenly enjoy sucking dick

You want to know another reason few marry? Because it was never until very recently an achievable goal, and because the motive for many heterosexuals to marry - the "american dream", the "square's life" - is seen my many LGBT as not achievable even IF they marry. They're already outside the box, they've already been rejected family who pressure their hetero kids to marry and go on about wanting grandkids. So given all that, why bother?

But that brings us to the 10% who do marry and soundly reject your theory of "recruitment." How do you justify treating their relationship as inferior and unworthy of equal rights?
 
I think there are better ways to reduce bullying than telling kids that there's nothing wrong with exploring homosexuality.

twisting words...i never for a moment said "exploring." But ok, how would you reduce bullying of homosexual kids, without being able to even bring up the topic?
 
It just comes across as paranoid to me. If you're secure in your sexuality, what is there to fear? Try as some might, they'll never be able to make you suddenly enjoy sucking dick

You want to know another reason few marry? Because it was never until very recently an achievable goal, and because the motive for many heterosexuals to marry - the "american dream", the "square's life" - is seen my many LGBT as not achievable even IF they marry. They're already outside the box, they've already been rejected family who pressure their hetero kids to marry and go on about wanting grandkids. So given all that, why bother?

But that brings us to the 10% who do marry and soundly reject your theory of "recruitment." How do you justify treating their relationship as inferior and unworthy of equal rights?

That 10% is why I'm on the fence about domestic partnerships and would even be inclined to support a law that provides that. The fact that it's not a marriage doesn't mean that it's not a loving relationship or that there shouldn't be any sort of legal structure to support such an alternative lifestyle arrangement if the participants so desire it. But it's still something that only would apply to 1 in 100 and that frequency only if we consider that 10% of the population is homosexual and 10% of homosexuals marry and both of those statistics are actually on the high side.
 
twisting words...i never for a moment said "exploring." But ok, how would you reduce bullying of homosexual kids, without being able to even bring up the topic?

The bullying problem isn't a homosexual problem, Chromium. You have to deal with bullying of homosexuals the same way you have to deal with bullying of the poor kids, the nerds, the ones with lots of zits, the fat ones, the skinny ones, the ones with glasses, the ones that talk funny, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

You deal with the bullying by not tolerating bullying.
 
You are exactly right. To argue that an example of anything that occurs in nature is normal no matter how rare, unusual or bizarre it is means that the word "normal" is just wasting space in a dictionary and is nothing but white noise when used in a sentence.
It's exactly this type of thinking that led to the release of scores of people from mental institutions... and onto the streets and into jails and prisons. "Who are we to say what's normal? They are just different."

When someone says that they don't think that "normal" implies what's typical, they usually mean to imply that we should call such people normal so that we can think of them as typical or treat them as you would the typical case. They're using two contrasting definitions at the same time.
 
Last edited:
Or as domestic partnerships would. For the purpose of legal protection and trust that you are arguing, there's no difference.

There is no reason at all to have a different name for something that will be doing the same thing, whether it is for one group or everyone that the name is changed. You, nor those others against same sex couples getting married own the word "marriage" or its meaning. It already covers same sex couples now. And there is nothing fiscally responsible or efficient about changing the relationships to "domestic partnerships" for either just same sex couples or everyone.
 
It's exactly this type of thinking that led to the release of scores of people from mental institutions... and onto the streets and into jails and prisons. "Who are we to say what's normal? They are just different."

Many of the people released from mental institutions were either a) released because of money/financial concerns, or b) they didn't really belong there to begin with. None of it had to do with people saying they were merely "different"/"not normal".
 
Look, I completely understand why homosexuals would try to "recruit". I can't tell you how many I've heard tell me that they really want a "straight man", not another queer. It's strange as hell because if they could have them, they wouldn't really be straight men after all. But that's another story. The fact is that the GLBT community does widespread "recruiting". Straight people just call it "seduction", but people do it and normalizing homosexuality would help with that recruitment. The fact that so few homosexuals actually get married should be a clue that marriage itself isn't really the goal here. It is what it is and I don't really care what you or anyone else does sexually. That's your business. I'm just calling it like I see it and I don't see the point in creating the institution of homosexual marriage just for the sake of normalizing homosexuality.

And plenty of straight women say they want a gay man they can convert.

No, they are not "recruiting". That is a stupid and baseless accusation.
 
Back
Top Bottom