• 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!

New York State Senate Votes Down Gay Marriage Bill

Actually, you are confused. That is a very clear claim. You say that there is no evidence people are created gay. Back this up. Just saying it is true does not make it so.

It was not a claim. It was a conclusion based on the lack of evidence provided to substantiate an equal footing with race as many here have made long before I ever posted that conclusion.

You really need to read the entire thread next time.
 
Re: Lots of people are legally excluded from marriage.

It is your job to convince us that those laws should not be in place and you have yet to provide a compelling reason to do so.

I have, you choose to discard it, your choice, but I have presented compelling reasons to allow same sex marriage.

Nor have you answered the question on how you would limit this new "right" to just one alternative lifestyle or how you would exclude other alternative lifestyles who want the same thing.

First you will have to list these alternate lifestyles, and please, don't be foolish and list bestiality as it is clear an animal does not give legal consent.
 
Re: Lots of people are legally excluded from marriage.

No its a reality until you can prove it isn't.

Actually, no, the slippery slope is a logical fallacy. Has been for thousands of years.
 
It was not a claim. It was a conclusion based on the lack of evidence provided to substantiate an equal footing with race as many here have made long before I ever posted that conclusion.

You really need to read the entire thread next time.

Ah, so because you don't think there is sufficient evidence to back up the other argument, yours must be the correct one? :lol:

Not everything is that black and white. If you are going to have an argument, you at least need to back it up. At least people who have the argument have been giving evidence to back theirs up. Whether you find it legitimate or not doesn't matter. Your unwillingness to back up your own argument speaks volumes.
 
Re: Lots of people are legally excluded from marriage.

I have, you choose to discard it, your choice, but I have presented compelling reasons to allow same sex marriage.

Perhaps in your mind yes you have.

First you will have to list these alternate lifestyles, and please, don't be foolish and list bestiality as it is clear an animal does not give legal consent.

I've already done this but I can do it again. Pologamy which you have already said you would allow, the age limit on marriage would be another.

If you claim that people need to be of a certain age to marry then you are making a moral judgment, the same moral judgment we have made as a society in over 30 states to reject gay marriage.

My problem with people who are for gay marriage is many do not want to look at the doors it opens to other alternative lifestyles demanding the same thing they are.
 
Ah, so because you don't think there is sufficient evidence to back up the other argument, yours must be the correct one? :lol:

Not everything is that black and white. If you are going to have an argument, you at least need to back it up. At least people who have the argument have been giving evidence to back theirs up. Whether you find it legitimate or not doesn't matter. Your unwillingness to back up your own argument speaks volumes.

I have backed it up. Many times over. I'm not the one who is trying to change the law. People who support your position are. You need to have real evidence to support yourself not studies based on other specicies or failed twin experiments that have already been disproven of satisfying the theory presented.

Here are two claims paramount to making gay marriage equal to heterosexual marriage.

1. Proving there is a genetic characteristic shared in at least 60% or higher of all homosexuals.

Without that, the only conclusion is that it is a choice not worthy of being equal to heterosexual marriage

2. Explaining how letting gay marriage be equal to heterosexual marriage will not open the door for other alternatve lifestyles from demanding the same thing based on the same argument.
 
Re: Lots of people are legally excluded from marriage.

Actually, no, the slippery slope is a logical fallacy. Has been for thousands of years.

Actually no it hasn't. To prove your point, please explain the difference between allowing homosexual marriage and polygamy.

How can you allow one without the other?
 
Re: Lots of people are legally excluded from marriage.

Actually that has no bearing on this whatsoever since there are hundreds of laws that go against that phrase.



Waaaayy too many people think their opinion is the only educated point of view.



I know its fun to come to a conclusion on your own without evidence but exactly how is polygamy different when it comes to who should be able to marry whom in the recognition by the state?


Because Polygamy most likely would receive standard scrutiny.
Gay marriage would likely receive the intermediate level.

If you want to know why....study the 3 levels of analysis. I'll give you a clue:
It has to do with what the Court recognizes and doesn't recognize as a "Suspect class".
 
Re: Lots of people are legally excluded from marriage.

Because Polygamy most likely would receive standard scrutiny.
Gay marriage would likely receive the intermediate level.

What do you base this on?

If you want to know why....study the 3 levels of analysis. I'll give you a clue:
It has to do with what the Court recognizes and doesn't recognize as a "Suspect class".

You mean the law against Polygamy like the law against gay marriage? :roll:
 
I have backed it up. Many times over. I'm not the one who is trying to change the law. People who support your position are. You need to have real evidence to support yourself not studies based on other specicies or failed twin experiments that have already been disproven of satisfying the theory presented.

Here are two claims paramount to making gay marriage equal to heterosexual marriage.

1. Proving there is a genetic characteristic shared in at least 60% or higher of all homosexuals.

Without that, the only conclusion is that it is a choice not worthy of being equal to heterosexual marriage

2. Explaining how letting gay marriage be equal to heterosexual marriage will not open the door for other alternatve lifestyles from demanding the same thing based on the same argument.

So, yet again you dodge the question and fail to back up your argument. I can see it's pointless trying to engage you in any kind of constructive discussion. Have fun. :2wave:
 
So, yet again you dodge the question and fail to back up your argument. I can see it's pointless trying to engage you in any kind of constructive discussion. Have fun. :2wave:

I'm not the one trying to change the law. You are.

You can try and spin it back on me but again it is you who want to change the law therefore you must make the argument.

I wish you could understand this.
 
Re: Lots of people are legally excluded from marriage.

What do you base this on?



You mean the law against Polygamy like the law against gay marriage? :roll:

You have to understand the analysis to understand....but simply put, Polygamists are not viewed as a "suspect class", gays have not been recognized as a "suspect class" either, however, the Court has showed an increasing trend to apply the intermediate level of analysis in issues related to sexual orientation.

Thus, in the case of polygamy, the government would only have to show a "legitimate" state interest to support the discrimination....in the case of gay marriage, the Court would likely require the government to show an "important" state interest to support the discrimination. Neither would receive strict scrutiny which would require a compelling state interest.
 
I'm not the one trying to change the law. You are. And you cannot back up your reasoning to change the law.

You can try and spin it back on me but again it is you who want to change the law.

I wish you could understand this.

The argument isn't about the law. The argument is about your position that homosexuality isn't genetic. You have yet to back that argument up. So are you going to finally back it up, or are you going to continue to dodge the question and instead demand that people on the other side back up theirs? You obviously don't know how debate works. :doh
 
Re: Lots of people are legally excluded from marriage.

You have to understand the analysis to understand....but simply put, Polygamists are not viewed as a "suspect class", gays have not been recognized as a "suspect class" either, however, the Court has showed an increasing trend to apply the intermediate level of analysis in issues related to sexual orientation.

That doesn't answer my question. How are they different?

Thus, in the case of polygamy, the government would only have to show a "legitimate" state interest to support the discrimination....in the case of gay marriage, the Court would likely require the government to show an "important" state interest to support the discrimination. Neither would receive strict scrutiny which would require a compelling state interest.

Ok so you are claiming discrimination is the reason to allow gay marriage is that correct?
 
The argument isn't about the law. The argument is about your position that homosexuality isn't genetic. You have yet to back that argument up. So are you going to finally back it up, or are you going to continue to dodge the question and instead demand that people on the other side back up theirs? You obviously don't know how debate works. :doh


LOL You want me to back up it isn't genetic? No problem. You have no evidence it is :rofl

Seriously, the claim is made by your side that its genetic. If you can't prove that, then the conclusion is obvious.

I know you're frustrated you can't prove it but that isn't my problem, its yours.

The law right now does not support your desire for gay marriage. To change that law you must provide reasoning besides "I want it".
 
Last edited:
LOL You want me to back up it isn't genetic? No problem. You have no evidence it is :rofl

Seriously, the claim is made by your side that its genetic. If you can't prove that, then the conclusion is obvious.

I know you're frustrated you can't prove it but that isn't my problem,its yours.


Uh, that doesn't back up your position. The fact that you can't back up your position speaks volumes. I find it incredibly funny and ironic that you think by simply saying "It isn't genetic because you have no evidence that it is!" somehow makes you win the argument. :lol:

That's like saying "Scientists are currently unable to prove that there is life on other planets...so there must not be!"

Your debate skills are severely lacking. :rofl

Thanks for the laughs, though.
 
Last edited:
Re: Lots of people are legally excluded from marriage.

In some states acts like anal sex and oral sex, the only thing two homosexual men can perform, are illegal.

Not to go off on a tangent but you are very unimaginative when it comes to the homosecks.
 
Uh, that doesn't back up your position. The fact that you can't back up your position speaks volumes. I find it incredibly funny and ironic that you think by simply saying "It isn't genetic because you have no evidence that it is!" somehow makes you win the argument. :lol:

Your debate skills are severely lacking. :rofl

Thanks for the laughs, though.

I'm sorry you can't understand that if you want to change existing law it is you who has to provide the case and evidence to change the law to support your claim but so be it.

Its sad you think that the side who sees no desire to change the law because the case hasn't been made is the one with the burden of proof.

It only exposes your inability to support your case.
 
Last edited:
Re: Lots of people are legally excluded from marriage.

No its a reality until you can prove it isn't.

Well that's just retarded in and of itself. One of the first rules of logic is that you cannot prove a negative.

No wonder you fail so badly at this if this is one of the foundations of your "logical" argument. :roll:
 
I'm sorry you can't understand that if you want to change existing law it is you who has to provide the case and evidence to change the law to support your claim but so be it.

Um..I don't think anyone has to prove that it is genetic in order for gay marriage to be legal. :lol:
 
Um..I don't think anyone has to prove that it is genetic in order for gay marriage to be legal. :lol:

Actually they have. If you had actually read this thread you would know that. :roll:

So you don't want to claim its genetic as a reason to allow it.

Great!

Now please explain your reasoning for allowing it beyond the genetic argument.
 
Re: Lots of people are legally excluded from marriage.

Well that's just retarded in and of itself. One of the first rules of logic is that you cannot prove a negative.

No wonder you fail so badly at this if this is one of the foundations of your "logical" argument. :roll:

Well, science had better get cracking because there are a lot of legitimate theories out there that may not have sufficient evidence to his liking and so therefore these concepts simply don't exist to him. :lol:
 
Re: Lots of people are legally excluded from marriage.

Well that's just retarded in and of itself. One of the first rules of logic is that you cannot prove a negative.

No wonder you fail so badly at this if this is one of the foundations of your "logical" argument. :roll:

Come on.

.....
 
Re: Lots of people are legally excluded from marriage.

Well, science had better get cracking because there are a lot of legitimate theories out there that may not have sufficient evidence to his liking and so therefore these concepts simply don't exist to him. :lol:

Actually the only thing the genetics argument has shown is that gay marriage supporters who use it must admit their basis is purely on faith since they can't prove its existence. :2wave:
 
Actually they have. If you had actually read this thread you would know that. :roll:

So you don't want to claim its genetic as a reason to allow it.

Great!

Now please explain your reasoning for allowing it beyond the genetic argument.

That's interesting, because already it's been legalized in a few states. I don't recall them having to prove that it was genetic for those. Or are these simply your rules in some imaginary reality where you are the king? :lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom