• 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!

DC City Council votes to legalize gay marriage

So Jerry, suppose you're a widower at age 50. You fall in love with a wonderful woman about your age. You propose. Do you intend to have kids?

Then she says she's gone through menopause already. What do you say?
 
windovervocalcords said:
Thank you. It only took several pages to get the raw truth out of you.
Click to expand...

I thought I said it 30 pages ago :doh


27Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.
~James 1:27
Click to expand...

If that's what gay 'marriage is about, then I am for gay marriage. If not, then I'm not.

***
Yes I just hinted at a religious argument for gay marriage which doesn't misrepresent scripture in the least :2wave:
 
Last edited:
Jerry seems to be ignoring my posts. Wise move. So much for getting the truth out of him.
 
Jerry said:
I thought I said it 30 pages ago :doh



If that's what gay 'marriage is about, then I am for gay marriage. If not, then I'm not.

***
Yes I just hinted at a religious argument for gay marriage which doesn't misrepresent scripture in the least :2wave:
Click to expand...

I'm talking about civil marriage and you're talking about religious marriage and quoting scripture. We're on completely different topics.

I'm on the Justice of the Peace or city hall and you're on a church wedding.

I'm talking about changing the law Jerry.
 
Last edited:
misterman said:
Jerry seems to be ignoring my posts. Wise move. So much for getting the truth out of him.
Click to expand...

Ask your question in the next gay 'marriage thread, as a mod should be along shortly to close this one :2wave:
 
windovervocalcords said:
I'm talking about civil marriage and you're talking about religious marriage and quoting scripture. We're on completely different topics.

I'm on the Justice of the Peace and you're on a church wedding.

I'm talking about changing the law Jerry.
Click to expand...

Right, and to get my vote/money/signature to change that law, you have to meet my religious requirement because there is no separation of Church from People.

Funny how politics works.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Right, and to get my vote/money/signature to change that law, you have to meet my religious requirement.

Funny how politics works.
Click to expand...

I don't want your vote Jerry. Just try and stay on the topic. I'm talking about civil marriage law and you're talking about religion.
 
Last edited:
windovervocalcords said:
I don't want your vote Jerry. Just try and stay on the topic. I'm talking about civil law and you're talking about religion.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about marriage as a complete sociological organism. The law is but one part of the greater institution.

By definition in order to be an organism it must reproduce; ie. create offspring.

A relationship which does not reproduce is not a social organism. It's something else. While that something else may be perfectly fine and valid in it's oun right, it's not a marriage as it doesn't do the things a marriage is supposed to do. It is as different as my left handedness is different.
 
Last edited:
"Marriage is a social union or legal contract between individuals that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged by a variety of ways, depending on the culture or demographic. Such a union may also be called matrimony, while the ceremony that marks its beginning is usually called a wedding and the marital structure created is known as wedlock.

People marry for many reasons, most often including one or more of the following: legal, social, emotional, economical, spiritual, and religious. These might include arranged marriages, family obligations, the legal establishment of a nuclear family unit, the legal protection of children and public declaration of love."
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage]Marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 
Jerry, why on earth have you come to the conclusion that marriage is only about having and raising offspring? That is a redefinition of marriage that would have far greater implications toward the institution than allowing gays to marry ever could.
 
CriticalThought said:
Jerry, why on earth have you come to the conclusion that marriage is only about having and raising offspring? That is a redefinition of marriage that would have far greater implications toward the institution than allowing gays to marry ever could.
Click to expand...

It's a great way to change the subject of gay marriage threads tho.
 
CriticalThought said:
Jerry, why on earth have you come to the conclusion that marriage is only about having and raising offspring? That is a redefinition of marriage that would have far greater implications toward the institution than allowing gays to marry ever could.
Click to expand...
It isn't. Legal marriage is about tax benefits and simplifying divorce court procedures regarding which partner gets what, nothing more.
 
Toothpicvic said:
It isn't. Legal marriage is about tax benefits and simplifying divorce court procedures regarding which partner gets what, nothing more.
Click to expand...

Well a part of it is also about death benefits. Such as inheriting a house that both partners contributed too creating.
 
EpicDude86 said:
Wait...They don't? :shock:




:lol:
Click to expand...

There are some real differences, in particular when it comes to children. Example:

State GLB Adoption Policies
• Only Florida forbids “homosexuals” from adopting (Florida Statutes § 63.042(3)), and bisexuals are also apparently disqualified.
• Mississippi explicitly bans “same-gender” couples from adopting (MISS CODE ANN § 93-17-3-(5)), as does Utah through a ban on adoption by all unmarried couples (UTAH CODE ANN § 78-30-1(3)(b)). However, single GLB people in Mississippi and Utah might be able to adopt.
• In contrast, some states have policies that either explicitly or implicitly state that sexual orientation cannot be a basis to prevent gay and lesbian people from adopting, including California, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and the District of Columbia (Cooper and Cates, 2006, p. 6).

...

State GLB Fostering Policies
• Nebraska has a policy prohibiting gay people from fostering, but the current enforcement of that policy is unclear (Cooper and Cates, 2006).
• As with adoption, Utah forbids fostering by unmarried couples (UTAH CODE ANN § 62A-4A-602).
• A policy banning gay foster parents was recently removed by the Department of Social Services in Missouri and overturned by the state Supreme Court in Arkansas (Cooper and Cates, 2006, p. 11).
Click to expand...

Now tell me how many states ban mixed sex couples from adopting and fostering.

Source: http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/publications/FinalAdoptionReport.pdf
 
Charles Martel said:
I wouldn't have asked if I didn't "really" want you to do that. Your colossal errors on this issue haven't been allowed to pass to date, I wouldn't know why you'd be expecting gimme putts now.
Click to expand...

Your errors in this thread cannot be measured by modern technology. It's as if you do not understand the concept of what we are discussing.
 
Charles Martel said:
We're "guilty?" Wow. Yea....we're guilty of knowledge Sir. We're guilty of knowin what in blue blazes we're talking about.
Click to expand...

As I said, you have demonstrated that you have little or no understanding of what we are discussing. Must be frustrating for you.



You are the member in here completely at a loss concerning this issue.
Click to expand...

Tell us what the difference is. :lol:



Who needed to show the penis and vagina "can be" used as sexual organs? And who needs to prove they're designed to be sexual organs? They're reproductive organs and thus sexual organs, you pile colossal error on top of colossal error. Your argument is becoming amusing, if not flat out ridiculous.
Click to expand...

I've already given you "a" purpose. Prove design. :lol:



"Guilty" of appealing to "nature?" And "over and over" even? Wow. Imagine our shame...appealing to reality and nature. Tsk tsk.
Click to expand...

Sad. You do not understand what a logical fallacy is. Interesting since that is how you debate. :lol:



I've sent a flock of data over you've yet to address, your assumption here is untrue, it isn't even close. You purposefully remove one of the genders from a child being raised, to pretend that has no affect is stratospherically wrong.
Click to expand...

Any data you have given has been trumped by the information and data I have provided. How does it feel to lose so colossally huge?



Procreation is necessary though...for child rearing, homosexuality in fact anything homosexual whatsoever...is absolutely and clearly unnecessary. Not understanding that heterosexuality is the necessary sexual behavior and orientation to conceive children is profoudly wrong and shakes your entire theory to the ground. And your argument finally coned down here to 'benefits from the state', it appears that's all this argument is to the pro-gay movements and arguments. Marriage becomes merely a contract(absolute nonsense), the arguments coned down to what benefits are in it for us, how can we legitimize ourselves in the eyes of the 'state.'
Click to expand...

Now you have proven that you do not know what this debate is about. Marriage IS about a contract and IS about what benefits the state. That is why the government sanctions it. You just put your foot in your mouth...again. :lol:



Removing these wrong-headed and clearly confused arguments from yourself and jallman and others...setting them on the ground in neat order and on column...and piecemeal destroying each isn't misrepresentation. It's the utter destruction of the error prone points and arguments you and others are trying to make here. Pretending two women can raise a child, purposefully removing the father and faking like everything is just the same. What poppycock.
Click to expand...

Standard Charles Martel rebuttal: say nothing and end your comment with poppycock. :lol:



Not only provided proof, reminded you of the blatant facts as well......and they clearly shoe you're wrong.
Click to expand...

Not in the least. Dismantling your position was simple.



The number of colossal errors within your post certainly needs an excuse and a long day is as good as any other. I hope and pray I;ve been able to open your eyes a little more towards my side of the argument. Please read my links and explain your arguments if you can.
Click to expand...

You have opened my eyes to your argument. And I see it for what it is: absolutely nothing.
 
Taylor said:
Captain are you STILL trying to figure out what your penis is for?
Click to expand...

Taylor, are you still trying to figure out what the word "design" means. :lol:
 
My penis is for obliterating entire star systems with a single load.


Suck on that design. Metaphorically. If you literally did, it could end the planet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom