• 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!

Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

Bonnie1988 said:
THERE ARE NOW 55 PAGES ON THE TOPIC OF GAY RIGHTS JUST ON THIS THREAD, BUT EXACTLY ONE PERSON ON THIS BOARD INTERESTED IN EQUALITY FOR WOMEN.
Click to expand...
Then how about you stop posting in a thread about gay rights and go post a thread on equality for women?
When you knowingly post off topic in a thread that's called trolling.
 
Navy Pride said:
I am not going to play your silly childish game.......You know my reasons.........If you were new here I might explain why I am against gay marriage for the umpteenth time but you have been here almost as long as I have so the point it moot........
Click to expand...
Exactly why I say you're homophobic - I've seen your umpteenth "rationals". They typically circle around and around with no rationalization whatsoever. In fact that is applicable to virtually every single one of your posts on this forum. I've seen but a handful of your gazillion posts that have an actual rationale, but as for everything else? Just talking points from talk radio.
 
Bonnie1988 said:
THERE ARE NOW 55 PAGES ON THE TOPIC OF GAY RIGHTS JUST ON THIS THREAD, BUT EXACTLY ONE PERSON ON THIS BOARD INTERESTED IN EQUALITY FOR WOMEN.
Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:
The topic of this thread revolves around gay marriage. Please do not threadjack. If you are interested in woman's rights, start a thread on it.
 
Navy Pride said:
Its amazing how intolerant people on the left are and how they resort to the same old name calling with people that disagree with them.......
Click to expand...

Its amazing how intolerant SOME people on the FAR left as well as SOME on the FAR right are and how they resort to the same old name calling with people that disagree with them......:shock:
 
UtahBill said:
Its amazing how intolerant SOME people on the FAR left as well as SOME on the FAR right are and how they resort to the same old name calling with people that disagree with them......:shock:
Click to expand...

What name have I called you?:confused:
 
jfuh said:
Exactly why I say you're homophobic - I've seen your umpteenth "rationals". They typically circle around and around with no rationalization whatsoever. In fact that is applicable to virtually every single one of your posts on this forum. I've seen but a handful of your gazillion posts that have an actual rationale, but as for everything else? Just talking points from talk radio.
Click to expand...


And that is exactly why you are warped with far left wing thinking my liberal friend.......
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Moderator's Warning:
The topic of this thread revolves around gay marriage. Please do not threadjack. If you are interested in woman's rights, start a thread on it.
Click to expand...
I wasn't trying to threadjack. But I also think you might agree I have started enough threads on women's rights. I didn't pursue this topic on the course of women's rights, but instead did feel that after 55 pages of "rights" topics, a sentence pointing out what rights are not advocated merited a mention. But I understand what you're saying.
 
Unrein said:
I believe video games are immoral, is that a rational reason to ban video games? (I don't really believe that I was just making a rhetorical point)

Well this begs a very obvious question: Why is homosexuality immoral?

Also, does this rule apply to anything? If the majority believe espousing nazism is immoral should they be able sensor peoples right to assembly? (do I get bonus points for the irony?) If people believe rock music is immoral they should be able to ban rock music?

I thought the conservative right supported small government and liberty?



I don't so, next question.



Point being?
Click to expand...

Nearly all laws are about "morality." Which one's aren't?

But my point was simple enough, why would anyone vote to constitutionally protect immorality?

Keeping it on the topic of sexuality, rather than the broader topic of civil rights, do you have a great problem with laws prohibiting polygamy? Do you outcry against it being outlawed? Horrific crimes, even mass murders, have been committed against polygamists in US history. Even now their families are ripped apart and people who do so still sometimes imprisoned.

Why do you battle for gay rights (if you're not gay), while silent on criminalization of polygamy? Gays are not imprisoned and being gay now isn't a criminal offense (or where such rare laws are still on the books never enforced.) There are now even special laws regionally that give rights and protections to gays (hate-crime laws) that don't protect me because I'm straight. There is no hate-crime law protecting me as a woman either.

My point was and is about selectively pursuing "equality" - and why is gay rights such a big deal in comparison to others? If its not about overall "equality" nor is about "morality," then what is it about? That gays are cool? This is the trendy topic of the media?
 
Last edited:
By jfuh
I'm not asking about them, I'm asking about you.
You're telling me that you can be convinced to be gay?
I have already explained to you in a previous reply, that this is not about me.

It also isn't about you.
It is about the subject.
Making any topic for debate, about the person engaged in the debate, is wrong.
 
Gay marriage is inmoral by the perversion act of homosexuality.

We, the -straight- people don't need to hate homosexuals because actually they are the ones who hate themselves...trying to kill one to another...
2 men guilty of injecting 14 with HIV - AIDS

Don't legalize a marital union of such perverts, lets promote family values instead.
 
Last edited:
conquer said:
Don't legalize a marital union of such perverts, lets promote family values instead.
Click to expand...

Actually if there were a law needed, it would be so folks such as yourself wouldn't be allowed to marry or reproduce. What a bunch of hate mongers.
 
Bonnie1988 said:
But my point was simple enough, why would anyone vote to constitutionally protect immorality?
Click to expand...

To some getting married by the justice of the peace is immoral, yet it is protected. Tell me why should YOUR definition of immoral be used as law?


Bonnie1988 said:
Keeping it on the topic of sexuality, rather than the broader topic of civil rights, do you have a great problem with laws prohibiting polygamy?
Click to expand...

ACtually most people that are for gay marriage are also for polygamy being legal as well. The problem with polygfamy comes from an administration issue, not a moral one.

If there was a good size of the population that wanted to marry multiple partners, I see nothing wrong with it except for administration issues would need to be done.

Any more glaring generalizations from our local man hater?
 
TheNextEra said:
ACtually most people that are for gay marriage are also for polygamy being legal as well. The problem with polygfamy comes from an administration issue, not a moral one.
If there was a good size of the population that wanted to marry multiple partners, I see nothing wrong with it except for administration issues would need to be done.

?
Click to expand...
granted, I am all for live and let live, is it be consenting adults and done quietly...but that is a new one on me....who would they be, those that are FOR polygamy AND gay marriage...?
 
Well, what would be the argument against polygamy?

For that matter, what would be the argument against, say, adult siblings marrying when there's no possibility of natural childbirth? Brothers, for example.
 
UtahBill said:
granted, I am all for live and let live, is it be consenting adults and done quietly...but that is a new one on me....who would they be, those that are FOR polygamy AND gay marriage...?
Click to expand...

I have no problem with polygamy or gay marriage.

I think polygamy get a bad name from the religious whackjob implications of it, but it doesn't have to be that way. I think if 3 or more consenting adults decided they wanted to legally join together other who am I to stand in the way of their happiness?
 
Harshaw said:
Well, what would be the argument against polygamy?

For that matter, what would be the argument against, say, adult siblings marrying when there's no possibility of natural childbirth? Brothers, for example.
Click to expand...

extra creepy, too much for me.....
 
Harshaw said:
Well, what would be the argument against polygamy?

For that matter, what would be the argument against, say, adult siblings marrying when there's no possibility of natural childbirth? Brothers, for example.
Click to expand...
7 men and 7 women, each married to each other, adopt 7 kids (so each of 7 kids has 7 moms and 7 dads).

3 of the men want divorced from 4 of the women, and want to remove 2 of the kids from the house-- but they cannot agree on which 2.

Hmm... turns 'divorce lawyer' into a rather lucrative profession.
 
UtahBill said:
extra creepy, too much for me.....
Click to expand...

So, for defining the limits of marriage between consenting adults, the line should be drawn at the "ick" factor?

Whose "ick" factor should decide?
 
UtahBill said:
granted, I am all for live and let live, is it be consenting adults and done quietly...but that is a new one on me....who would they be, those that are FOR polygamy AND gay marriage...?
Click to expand...

I am. I see no reason whatsoever to keep polygamy between consenting adults illegal.
 
Harshaw said:
So, for defining the limits of marriage between consenting adults, the line should be drawn at the "ick" factor?

Whose "ick" factor should decide?
Click to expand...

It is like sausage or hot dogs, if you know how they are made, you might not eat them.
Keep the ickiness behind closed doors and there is no problem. Get in people's faces and there is a problem, even if you are legally correct...
 
UtahBill said:
Get in people's faces and there is a problem, even if you are legally correct...
Click to expand...

No oppression has ever been solved by not getting in people's faces though.

Do you really think Women or Blacks would have the right to vote if they didn't get in people's faces about it and just kept quiet about it?
 
rivrrat said:
I am. I see no reason whatsoever to keep polygamy between consenting adults illegal.
Click to expand...
It is practiced more than the public knows about, but the smart ones keep a very low profile, and don't involve the kids...
I have no moral opposition to it, but some of them have been known to abuse welfare and foodstamp programs...and the fiscal conservative side of me objects to that...
 
UtahBill said:
It is like sausage or hot dogs, if you know how they are made, you might not eat them.
Keep the ickiness behind closed doors and there is no problem. Get in people's faces and there is a problem, even if you are legally correct...
Click to expand...

But there needs to be a principle, or it's just case-by-case, and that's not rule of law; it's just arbitrary.

If the principle is, consenting adults have the right to marry whomever they wish, what's the principled argument against polygamy, group marriages, or siblings marrying?

I did mention brothers marrying in order to take an incestuous child out of the equation, but seriously, couldn't a brother and sister marry and just abort any child?

So, what's the principled argument against it?
 
TheNextEra said:
No oppression has ever been solved by not getting in people's faces though.

Do you really think Women or Blacks would have the right to vote if they didn't get in people's faces about it and just kept quiet about it?
Click to expand...

When did blacks ever crash the services at a white church?
MLK knew it, preached it, lived it....the low level confrontation, out in public. It took a long time, but it is happening. It will take a long time on the gay issues as well.
I see a more effective tool that should be used here. management by embarrassment...MBE...
If the churches are made to look like denizens of the OT, instead of followers of their saviour re the NT, things will change....
After all, it was the Southern Baptists that were pro slavery, and now they have apologizied and moved on...
 
UtahBill said:
When did blacks ever crash the services at a white church?
Click to expand...

I'm not excusing these people's actions in the least. However, I do believe getting in people's faces while in public about something is necessary at times for change.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom