• 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

He just did. You didn't read his response.

No she didn't. Not at all.

If you use an argument of "human rights" to argue for gay marriage and it is upheld based on that argument, you could never limit any humans in any number from demanding the same thing based on the same argument.

That's irrelevant, since I NEVER use the human rights position to argue for GM. It's a loser of a position.

Then you should be disappointed in this board denying the vote by the people. Yet you are not. Why?

Because if elected officials vote for something when the majority of their constituency did not support it, the officials are not doing their jobs.
 
You certainly have a lot to say about an issue that doesn't "affect you in the least" :mrgreen:

That's precisely why it should be allowed. It doesn't affect those not involved...in the least. Thought you would have figured that out by now. ;)
 
I wanted to put these two quotes in the same post because though they seem to not be connected, they are.

It's the part I've always thought was important. Whether or not gay marriage (recognized by the state) makes for a better society is what's at the heart of the debate.

I agree. This IS the heart of the matter. Marriage is recognized by the state because it has been shown to produce a healthier and more stable society. Folks who are married live longer, report being happier, tend to be more stable in their jobs and in societal endeavors. Most importantly, they are most adept at rearing children and provide the most stable of environments. Evidence of this is across the board...regardless of sexual orientation. All of this benefits society, and by proxy, the government and country. A more stable, happier populace creates a more stable, happier society. Ultimately, by using the family/societal benefits defense, which I always present, this is a simple debate to win. There is no valid counterpoint, other than eliminating marriage, altogether. Unfortunately, too many pro-GMs are bent on the "rights" position, a loser position because it always gets bogged down in semantics.

Compare relative strengths of cultures that promote monogamy vs cultures that promote polygamy and you'll have your answer.

I wanted this post here because of the standard polygamy slippery slope position presented by many anti-GMs. It is a weak and non-sensical position, simply because polygamy does NOT create the same benefits that singular marriage does. Therefore, the government has no vested interest in supporting it.
 
That is not only false it is completely unsupported by any factual data whatsoever.

Explain bi-sexuals

Explain people who come out of the closet 40 or 50 years later

Explain people who go back to being straight after some religous retreat.

The facts are homosexuality has never ever been proven to be an inherited or genetic trait.

The fruit fly study has already been proven false and not even the same species and the twin study couldn't even conclude that even in twins when one decides they are gay in even 50% of the cases the other twin who shares the EXACT same genetic structure decides they are gay. Furthermore, the number went down even further when the twins didn't grow up together.

Its time to face reality. Your claims have absolutely no factual backing at all while people who come out decades later, change their sexual orientation back to straight give far more evidence that it is a psychological choice to become homosexual.

You do not understand the difference between homosexual behavior and homosexual orientation, or why someone would "stay in the closet for 40 years." Nothing in your post demonstrated any understanding of this issue at all. Sexual orienation is not something that is changed. Sexual behavior can be.

Heterosexuality is genetically inherited because only heterosexual sex allows any species to procreate.

This is the most foolish statement I have seen in a long time. It is circular reasoning and completely illogical.
 
Me personally, I think all government sanctioned unions should be civil unions and then let whatever institution (religion or not) call them marriages.

I've been saying this for ages. It is my position to a tee.
 
Compare relative strengths of cultures that promote monogamy vs cultures that promote polygamy and you'll have your answer.

No wonder the Old Testament is so screwed up ;)
 
Ultimately, by using the family/societal benefits defense, which I always present, this is a simple debate to win. There is no valid counterpoint, other than eliminating marriage, altogether.
I have a slightly different position. I think there's plenty of legal challenges and hurdles to keep gay marriage from becoming a true reality for quite some time. I seriously doubt the current SCOTUS makeup would decide in favor of advocates. Even if successful (and pushed down people's throats), we'll end up with another Roe v Wade - a debate that doesn't go away.

I think the "family/societal benefits" angle is the best way to approach the debate. Not through the courts, but through gentle persuasion, potentially resulting in real acceptance. With acceptance comes people who actually vote to bring about the change. When you've got majorities voting to bring change state-by-state, then you've really won.

The current strategy only creates resistance.
 
I think the "family/societal benefits" angle is the best way to approach the debate.

No, it's not. That approach is discriminatory and violates the Equal Protection Clause.
 
No, it's not. That approach is discriminatory and violates the Equal Protection Clause.

The discrimination argument is a loser argument. Going the family/societal structural way pretty much guarantees victory. No defense other than eliminating marriage altogether.

But you try your discrimination position. Watch it get mired in quicksand. As it always does. Which is why there is no GM, currently.
 
I have a slightly different position. I think there's plenty of legal challenges and hurdles to keep gay marriage from becoming a true reality for quite some time. I seriously doubt the current SCOTUS makeup would decide in favor of advocates. Even if successful (and pushed down people's throats), we'll end up with another Roe v Wade - a debate that doesn't go away.

I think the "family/societal benefits" angle is the best way to approach the debate. Not through the courts, but through gentle persuasion, potentially resulting in real acceptance. With acceptance comes people who actually vote to bring about the change. When you've got majorities voting to bring change state-by-state, then you've really won.

The current strategy only creates resistance.

I pretty much agree with you here, though a think a bit more than "gentle" persuasion is necessary.
 
The discrimination argument is a loser argument. Going the family/societal structural way pretty much guarantees victory. No defense other than eliminating marriage altogether.

Why should I compromise my principles for the sake of expediency?
 
Heterosexuality is genetically inherited because only heterosexual sex allows any species to procreate.

CC did an excellent job responding to the rest of your post. So will only address this..which I don't think that he addressed enough.

Evolution through genetics is not a person or alive. It has no directive. Evolution is a completely random event that just happens because of various environmental effects. Normally done through some type of radiation mutating some gene to one degree or another. Plus there is one more problem with your statement. Homosexuals can still procreate. And there are even those that still do want to have kids. (quite a lot of them as a matter of fact)

You say that heterosexuality is genetically inherited. So where's that gene? You say there is no proof for homosexuality. Well I say that there is equally no proof for heterosexuality being genetic.
 
That's the best answer that you can come up with? One would think that if someone makes such a statement then they could answer it with more than just one word that doesn't answer the question.

10 char limit ..it's what you wanted :mrgreen:
 
Why should I compromise my principles for the sake of expediency?

If your principles are to support GM, I'm on your side. But, ultimately, it is NOT a discrimination issue; it is an issue that can best be described as both supporting the government and as being something beneficial to the government and country.

This has nothing to do with principle.
 
If your principles are to support GM, I'm on your side. But, ultimately, it is NOT a discrimination issue; it is an issue that can best be described as both supporting the government and as being something beneficial to the government and country.

This has nothing to do with principle.

My goal is to see government sanctioned marriage abolished. But as long as government is involved, it has no right to restrict marriage to consenting "one man one woman" couples. It must extend it to ALL consenting adults; no exceptions.

Society has no right to value one relationship above another and then compel my support via my tax dollars. That's discriminatory and violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment. I'll only fight it on those grounds and not some back door approach that elevates gays into an accepted group while others are still denied.
 
My goal is to see government sanctioned marriage abolished. But as long as government is involved, it has no right to restrict marriage to consenting "one man one woman" couples. It must extend it to ALL consenting adults; no exceptions.

Society has no right to value one relationship above another and then compel my support via my tax dollars. That's discriminatory and violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment. I'll only fight it on those grounds and not some back door approach that elevates gays into an accepted group while others are still denied.

My goal is the same as yours; difference is that my way will be successful, yours will not. Your way requires laws to be changed. With mine, evidence already exists that supports the utilization of current laws to cover GM. Based on current law, there is no discrimination. Gays can still marry.

My approach is no back door. It focuses on family and society which is what this is about. Yours pretends to focus on discrimination, but does not. Yours is a loser argument. If it wasn't, we would already have GM.
 
Last edited:
I wanted to put these two quotes in the same post because though they seem to not be connected, they are.



I agree. This IS the heart of the matter. Marriage is recognized by the state because it has been shown to produce a healthier and more stable society. Folks who are married live longer, report being happier, tend to be more stable in their jobs and in societal endeavors. Most importantly, they are most adept at rearing children and provide the most stable of environments. Evidence of this is across the board...regardless of sexual orientation. All of this benefits society, and by proxy, the government and country. A more stable, happier populace creates a more stable, happier society. Ultimately, by using the family/societal benefits defense, which I always present, this is a simple debate to win. There is no valid counterpoint, other than eliminating marriage, altogether. Unfortunately, too many pro-GMs are bent on the "rights" position, a loser position because it always gets bogged down in semantics.



I wanted this post here because of the standard polygamy slippery slope position presented by many anti-GMs. It is a weak and non-sensical position, simply because polygamy does NOT create the same benefits that singular marriage does. Therefore, the government has no vested interest in supporting it.

This is the best argument I have seen for GM. Wow. I may have to cut and paste it and save it in my personal files! Bravo, Captain, bravo! (I can't wait to see what the response is. ;))

:clap:
 
Yours pretends to focus on discrimination, but does not. Yours is a loser argument. If it wasn't, we would already have GM.

Just like it was a loser argument in Brown v Board of Education and Hernandez v Texas?

Look how long it took the Court to overturn "separate but equal". Was discrimination a loser argument for blacks during the years between Plessy and Brown?
 
That's irrelevant, since I NEVER use the human rights position to argue for GM. It's a loser of a position.

I wasn't addressing you specifically in that statement.

Because if elected officials vote for something when the majority of their constituency did not support it, the officials are not doing their jobs.

You are making my point for me.

There is no public vote ever that supported a gay marriage bill.

They did not want to risk the vote knowing the 0-31 record so they denied the vote by the people.

I ask you again, why are you not disappointed by this decision to stop the people from voting on the issue? Is it because you support GM?
 
You do not understand the difference between homosexual behavior and homosexual orientation, or why someone would "stay in the closet for 40 years." Nothing in your post demonstrated any understanding of this issue at all. Sexual orienation is not something that is changed. Sexual behavior can be.

Really. Prove it.

List the studies you are claiming support this theory of yours.

If your goal is to equate the sexual desire of homosexuals with the millions of years of heterosexual procreation and attraction, not to mention the compatibility of sexual organs for procreation between males and females, then you will need more than your pompous attitude and holier than thou rhetoric to convince others.

This is the most foolish statement I have seen in a long time. It is circular reasoning and completely illogical.

Of course. How could I possibly think nature would make the opposite sexes attracted to each other. LOL

So, for all the species of the world that populate with one male one female reproduction, please explain how we are not genetically inclined to be attracted to the opposite sex. :rofl

This is the dumbest argument you have made yet. You want to cast aside millions of years of evolution and procreation based on nothing but your own self satisfying theory.
 
Last edited:
I ask you again, why are you not disappointed by this decision to stop the people from voting on the issue? Is it because you support GM?

He's gonna win your heart and mind over by showing you how beneficial gay marriage is to society. You'll have an epiphany and embrace it with open arms ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom