• 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

My position has been consistent on this and every thread I post in regards to this topic. Here is the backbone of my position:



Taylor misrepresented my quote in a desperate but vain effort to bolster her position...a position that does not look at the whole picture. Since then I have been attempting to get her to state her position...which she seems to refuse to do.

There. Now you are up to speed.

You say this is a major reason. What is the additional reason(s) please?
 
We'll call this #2:




CC claims I was “backing off” but can’t provide any proof (because it’s not true).

What do you think the main reason for marriage is? What role should government play in marriage? Why?
 
You say this is a major reason. What is the additional reason(s) please?

:roll: Again, I have posted this in this thread, too...and MANY others. In fact, my comment here was supporting Taylor's comment that was similar. That is why her altering her position is confusing and why it seems like she may not know where she actually stands. Here is my full position on this:

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.

Taylor agreed with my position on this.
 
Last edited:
Here we go:

Procreation is always brought up by the anti-GM group as a reason to deny gays the right to marry their partner. Despite the fact that not everyone that gets married has or wants or can have kids. They act as if its the only reason to marry.

It's a major reason for why the state should recognize marriage.

When confronted on this statement you have refused to clarify...and when you misquoted me, you solidified your position by stating that the rearing of children was irrelevant to your position...logically demonstrating that procreation was the major part of your argument.

OK, so now you have been refuted X2. Want to try for the hat trick?
 
Here we go:





When confronted on this statement you have refused to clarify...and when you misquoted me, you solidified your position by stating that the rearing of children was irrelevant to your position...logically demonstrating that procreation was the major part of your argument.

OK, so now you have been refuted X2. Want to try for the hat trick?

Would you please for the love of God stop lying about her position?

What she said

No, no - I never said "the main reason" and the context was a bit broader than just procreation.

And said

It's a major reason for why the state should recognize marriage.

Do you understand the difference between main and major or does that have to be spoofed you as well?

There is a clear distinction but your refusal to see and admit it has been the mainstay of all your arguments on this issue. Misinformation, logical fallacy and downright circumvention of the truth is the mainstay of your arguments and its getting tiresome.

And don't worry, I haven't forgotten about responding to you, I simply don't have the time right now.
 
:roll: Again, I have posted this in this thread, too...and MANY others. In fact, my comment here was supporting Taylor's comment that was similar. That is why her altering her position is confusing and why it seems like she may not know where she actually stands. Here is my full position on this:



Taylor agree with my position on this.

Thanks CC. Sorry for asking you to repeat yourself, but with over 700 posts in this thread alone, it's easy to miss some, and to forget you read some.

As an aside, your argument sounds very much like what I see as a very liberal position, that the government can make the country better, and should in some ways. Marriage makes the country better, so the government should recognize and regulate it. Not an important point, but just a kind of observation.
 
Would you please for the love of God stop lying about her position?

What she said



And said



Do you understand the difference between main and major or does that have to be spoofed you as well?

There is a clear distinction but your refusal to see and admit it has been the mainstay of all your arguments on this issue. Misinformation, logical fallacy and downright circumvention of the truth is the mainstay of your arguments and its getting tiresome.

And don't worry, I haven't forgotten about responding to you, I simply don't have the time right now.

textmaster! Your back! Still not getting it, though, I see. That's OK...I'm here to help you understand things better.

Oh, and btw, textmaster. Procreation is neither a main nor major issue. That's the point and why Taylor's misquote was so inaccurate. Gald to help to educate you on that.
 
Last edited:
Thanks CC. Sorry for asking you to repeat yourself, but with over 700 posts in this thread alone, it's easy to miss some, and to forget you read some.

As an aside, your argument sounds very much like what I see as a very liberal position, that the government can make the country better, and should in some ways. Marriage makes the country better, so the government should recognize and regulate it. Not an important point, but just a kind of observation.

This is true. And procreation is neither a prerequisite for this, nor either a main nor major point. It is irrelevant. Child REARING is the relevant issue. Unfortunately, some folks just don't seem to understand that.
 
Context for #2

Here's what I originally said in context:
Procreation is always brought up by the anti-GM group as a reason to deny gays the right to marry their partner. Despite the fact that not everyone that gets married has or wants or can have kids. They act as if its the only reason to marry.
It's a major reason for why the state should recognize marriage.
^^ First, I did not say that procreation was “the main reason” but a major reason. There can be many “major” reasons for something, but only one “main” reason. Second, my comment wasn’t concerning “procreation” so much as procreation as it relates to people who “have or want to have kids”

Hence my later comment:
No, no - I never said "the main reason" and the context was a bit broader than just procreation.
And the still unsubstantiated:
Ah...so now your backing off, eh? So why don't you tell us what you really mean.
I've been entirely consistent and haven't "backed up" one iota from my initial statement.
 
Because you contradicted yourself...which is why it seems as if you do not understand what your position actually is.
Again, you're avoiding having to back up that my claim was irrelevant. Why is it irrelevant?

Tell us, is procreation the reason for marriage...based on the state?
Is it "the" reason? No, and I've never claimed as much (as pointed out above).
 
Context for #2

Here's what I originally said in context:


^^ First, I did not say that procreation was “the main reason” but a major reason. There can be many “major” reasons for something, but only one “main” reason. Second, my comment wasn’t concerning “procreation” so much as procreation as it relates to people who “have or want to have kids”

Hence my later comment:

And the still unsubstantiated:

I've been entirely consistent and haven't "backed up" one iota from my initial statement.

Oh, Taylor...still squirming. You, again, omitted an important part of this...your misquote and what you said about it. Here, let me refresh your memory. This is after your procreation is a "major reason" comment:

First, here is my original comment:

No it isn't. The rearing of children is a major reason why the state should recognize marriage. There is a difference.

Now...what you quoted:

No it isn't.

And your response:

Sure it is. It's good for society when people want to dedicate their lives to each other and start a family.

Now, you said that the second part of my comment was irrelevant to yours. This is where you are wrong...of course. Firstly, people can dedicate their lives to each other and start a family without procreation. Secondly, procreation is irrelevant to rearing children, as children reared through adoption do just as well. Procreation, as I said, is irrelevant to the equation. Everything that benefits the state and society is about the family and rearing children. Whether procreation happens or not in that family has no bearing on whether the state should sponsor marriages.

Are you getting it yet?
 
Again, you're avoiding having to back up that my claim was irrelevant. Why is it irrelevant?

I stated it in my comment that you "conveniently" misquoted. Procreation is irrelevant. It is the rearing of children that is one aspect that benefits the state. Doesn't matter in the least whether the children are biological, step, or adopted. Get it yet?


Is it "the" reason? No, and I've never claimed as much (as pointed out above).

The state could care less whether people procreate. Rearing children is what matters. Being married is what matters. Childless couples benefit the state moreso than single people...in all the ways I mentioned in the post that you agreed with.

So, now tell us...what is your position on this?
 
What do you think the main reason for marriage is? What role should government play in marriage? Why?
I believe marriage benefits society, and as such, should be supported/promoted by government.
 
I believe marriage benefits society, and as such, should be supported/promoted by government.

Would you like to tell us why...and expand on this a bit?
 
I believe marriage benefits society, and as such, should be supported/promoted by government.

And to bring this around to topic, how do you fit the topic of gay marriage into this. Does it too benefit society, and why or why not?
 
Firstly, people can dedicate their lives to each other and start a family without procreation. Secondly, procreation is irrelevant to rearing children, as children reared through adoption do just as well.
Procreation is irrelevant to rearing adopted children perhaps, but hardly irrelevant to the vast majority of families. For most of us who decide to have families, procreation is the desired route. [Needless to say, adopted children do not do"just as well" but are more likely to suffer depression and self-esteem problems, and deal with abandonment issues. The vast majority desire information on their birth-parents.]

Further, it benefits society when people procreate within a marriage. It's nice that people have the opportunity to adopt children, but it's maybe better for society if the child that came from the 17 year old girl arrived a few years later, in a stable home.

Let's not forget that many (most?) couples who do adopt did so after trying (unsuccessfully) to procreate. As I stated, "It's good for society when people want to dedicate their lives to each other and start a family" -
 
The state could care less whether people procreate.
Absurd.

The state cares very much about procreation. A healthy society demands sufficient population to pay taxes and fund programs.

On the family level, it can be detrimental when procreation occurs in single-parent households, as the state is more likley to have to subsidize (same goes for polygamy).
 
And to bring this around to topic, how do you fit the topic of gay marriage into this. Does it too benefit society, and why or why not?
That's the million dollar question. All else being equal, I don't think it benefits society as much as heterosexual marriage. I'll have to fill in the why's tomorrow - gotta sleep!
 
It's a major reason for why the state should recognize marriage.

So are you saying that gays cannot have kids? If not then why go this route?

PS: Word to the wise...becareful how you respond to CC about weather or not homosexual marriage "benefits society as much as heterosexual marriage". He's got a whole slew of links. Which I've no doubt that he's got tagged for use for just such discussions.
 
Absurd.

The state cares very much about procreation. A healthy society demands sufficient population to pay taxes and fund programs.

On the family level, it can be detrimental when procreation occurs in single-parent households, as the state is more likley to have to subsidize (same goes for polygamy).

Ah but we are not talking about "single-parent" families. We are talking about marriage. Which the word "single" obviously excludes.
 
Procreation is irrelevant to rearing adopted children perhaps, but hardly irrelevant to the vast majority of families. For most of us who decide to have families, procreation is the desired route. [Needless to say, adopted children do not do"just as well" but are more likely to suffer depression and self-esteem problems, and deal with abandonment issues. The vast majority desire information on their birth-parents.]

Further, it benefits society when people procreate within a marriage. It's nice that people have the opportunity to adopt children, but it's maybe better for society if the child that came from the 17 year old girl arrived a few years later, in a stable home.

Let's not forget that many (most?) couples who do adopt did so after trying (unsuccessfully) to procreate. As I stated, "It's good for society when people want to dedicate their lives to each other and start a family" -

Nope. As I said that started this entire thing...child rearing is what benefits society. HOW the child enters the world is irrelevant. It is the act of helping that child to grow that benefits the state.
 
Absurd.

The state cares very much about procreation. A healthy society demands sufficient population to pay taxes and fund programs.

On the family level, it can be detrimental when procreation occurs in single-parent households, as the state is more likley to have to subsidize (same goes for polygamy).

All of which is irrelevant. The state cares who exists, not HOW they came into existence. A family who has adopted is equivalent to a family with biological children in the state's eyes as far as whether or not it is beneficial. Procreation is irrelevant to this equation.
 
Nope. As I said that started this entire thing...child rearing is what benefits society. HOW the child enters the world is irrelevant. It is the act of helping that child to grow that benefits the state.

And that's all well and good. But child-rearing for society's benefit does not translate into logical opposition to gay marriage.
 
That's the million dollar question. All else being equal, I don't think it benefits society as much as heterosexual marriage. I'll have to fill in the why's tomorrow - gotta sleep!

Which is why you continue to hold an illogical position. Because a logical one would destroy your premise. All things being equal, since research shows that a homosexual couple can rear a child as well as a heterosexual couple, and since the health and stability benefits would also be equal regardless of the sexual orientation of the couple, GM certainly benefits the state just as much as heterosexual marriage. But please, feel free to show evidence of your position.
 
Back
Top Bottom