• 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!

'I do' in DC: Same-sex couples wed in Washington

There's nothing that prevents gays from getting married. Civil unions have been around a long time, and the commitment shouldn't be any different if they're serious about it.

They just insist on doing it in your face and forcing you to recognize it as MARRIAGE. It's like a gay parade; you always have those few that have to come out on their hands and knees with dog collars and leashes, or dressed up like Liza Minelli. They just want to get in your face about it.

Damn those inter-racial couples. They INSIST on doing it in your face and forcing you to recognize it as MARRIAGE..... They just want to get in your fae about it.

Why do blacks insist on drinking out of OUR drinking fountains and riding in OUR seats on the bus.

Don't these people understand their place in OUR society?
 
I freaking love you, man. Thanks for really distilling down exactly why the whole government interference in this subject thing is so offensive to me. It is NONE OF THE GUMMINT's BUSINESS who I marry. The only thing that matters is that I file my taxes and that I don't break any laws.

The fact that conservatives have gotten themselves into the middle of people's private business is...anti-conservative.

Well, I have always maintained that the term "social conservative" is an oxymoron.
 
Well, I have always maintained that the term "social conservative" is an oxymoron.

KEEP GUBMINT OUT OF MY LIFE!*

*except marriage, government should totally decide what marriages are legally recognized. but only if they recognize the marriages *I* recognize. no homos, is what I mean.
 
KEEP GUBMINT OUT OF MY LIFE!*

*except marriage, government should totally decide what marriages are legally recognized. but only if they recognize the marriages *I* recognize. no homos, is what I mean.

What about blacks, retards, cripples, and ugly people? :confused:
 
Well, I have always maintained that the term "social conservative" is an oxymoron.

Same here. I always listen to the Republicans say they are going to get the government off our backs so we can live our lives... They seem like nothing but a bunch of hypocrite con-artists in my opinion.
 
That is of course wrong as anyone can see in looking through the voting record - but yes, way off track and irrelevant to forum members reminiscing about their early days in the Democrat party.

LOL -- reminiscing, hardly. It's sad that with all the big strides forward we take as a nation, so-called Christian Americans got drag a step back in time...

And that's a jackass assumption to make--because I'm pro equal rights and protection, I'm a Democrat....?? Why would you say something so stupid?

Jeez, and I thought you far-rights respected the constitution. Too many hot dogs in the room and you get all squirmy...is that it?
 
I just want to say that the trend for this issue is evident . Our children are not going to think twice about gay marriage, it's going to be an accepted fact of life. Sure there will still be jerks around against it , but they'll have egual status as the people still prejudice against blacks today. I'm hoping people like navy pride are still around when this happens because I look forward to making him and his like eat their words. And since they are nothing more than words of hate, I expect them to be awful bitter.
 
There's nothing that prevents gays from getting married. Civil unions have been around a long time, and the commitment shouldn't be any different if they're serious about it.

They just insist on doing it in your face and forcing you to recognize it as MARRIAGE. It's like a gay parade; you always have those few that have to come out on their hands and knees with dog collars and leashes, or dressed up like Liza Minelli. They just want to get in your face about it.

My question is simply;
Exactly how many same sex weddings do you get invited to?
 
These are universal truths persistent throughout human history regardless of time or culture, and no shallow political activist group is going to change that.

The appendix has been persistent throughout human history. Dosn't mean we can't do without it though.
 
I don't because none of those are federal benefits.......

Everyone is treated equally....Gays can marry anyone of the opposite sex just as I can.....

I have no problem with that. As long as they can use the exact same criteria that you use when choosing a parner.

Wait. They can't.

Looks like we have a problem..
 
And that's a jackass assumption to make--because I'm pro equal rights and protection, I'm a Democrat....?? Why would you say something so stupid?
You being the king of jackass assumptions and pointless insinuations, I thought I'd see what happens when its tossed your way.

I mean, really -- how many more times are you going to try to pin jim crow on people who don't support state-recognition of gay marriage? :rofl
 
Good example, as no law can change what an appendix is either.

Yes it can. It can deffine an appendix as a Marraige if it so wishes.
And just like that law, it won't effect your marraige in the least.

Or you can just cut the whole darn thing out if you so wish.
 
Yes it can. It can deffine an appendix as a Marraige if it so wishes.
And just like that law, it won't effect your marraige in the least.

Or you can just cut the whole darn thing out if you so wish.
Don't you agree that whether or not something will "effect your marraige" is fairly irrelevant to a discussion on whether or not to recognize SSM?
 
Yes it can. It can deffine an appendix as a Marraige if it so wishes.

Right, and any such law does not change an appendix.

And just like that law, it won't effect your marraige in the least.

Any discussion of gay-marriage automatically precludes my marriage as I'm not gay, therefore so what if it doesn't affect my marriage. I'm effected by other people's marriages in other perfectly valid ways. I say gay-marriage does effect my marriage though symbolic interactionism, that changing the institution changes every marriage in that institution, but so what? Effecting me is not a requirement to support or oppose in any way.

Calling back to polygamy, maybe I wouldn't want to support it because of how Obama's UHC would raise my taxes to cover additional spouses. Maybe there are special rules which I think are harmful to the economy.

Maybe I could show how polygamy creates a step-parent dynamic within the lawfully married polygamist group and how this dynamic harms the children of that home is ways identical to step-parent couples typically do.

Maybe there's no problem with polygamy itself, but in it's modern context legalizing polygamy would give a harmful cultural force (sharia law) political influence I'd rather they didn't have.

It doesn't have to effect my marriage for me to oppose.
 
Last edited:
Right, and any such law does not change an appendix.



Any discussion of gay-marriage automatically precludes my marriage as I'm not gay, therefore so what if it doesn't affect my marriage. I'm effected by other people's marriages in other perfectly valid ways. I say gay-marriage does effect my marriage though symbolic interactionism, that changing the institution changes every marriage in that institution, but so what? Effecting me is not a requirement to support or oppose in any way.

Calling back to polygamy, maybe I wouldn't want to support it because of how Obama's UHC would raise my taxes to cover additional spouses. Maybe there are special rules which I think are harmful to the economy.

Maybe I could show how polygamy creates a step-parent dynamic within the lawfully married polygamist group and how this dynamic harms the children of that home is ways identical to step-parent couples typically do.

Maybe there's no problem with polygamy itself, but in it's modern context legalizing polygamy would give a harmful cultural force (sharia law) political influence I'd rather they didn't have.

It doesn't have to effect my marriage for me to oppose.

Now you're making a whole lot of assumptions. There is a difference between stepfamilies and polygamous. Mainly in the fact that most stepfamilies don't live together. And, many of the step parents come into the family after the parents have split up, most likely having put some sort of strain on the children already. You would be a lot closer in comparing polygamous marriage with those that have live-in extended families. This is how most of my family is. Almost every child in my family has lived with people that weren't their family members for an extended length of time (1 year or greater). My sister lives with me now to help me by watching the children when I have drill, and adding an extra income to the household. This is a lot closer to polygamy than stepfamily.

Also, there are plenty of people that used to argue, and some that still argue, that interracial relationships are harmful to the offspring of such relationships because it is hard for the children to find a place to belong. Now, I'm not saying I agree with this, but it was one of the popular arguments when interracial marriages were outlawed in almost half the states.
 
Now you're making a whole lot of assumptions.

I didn't even make one.

I posed hypothetical arguments I might be able to make, were we actually debating polygamy if I were against polygamy. The purpose of my offering possible arguments was to counter the premise that someone's marriage must directly effect my marriage in order for me to have any grounds to object.

To reiterate, I was not arguing against polygamy in that post. I was disproving a primes.

There is a difference between stepfamilies and polygamous. Mainly in the fact that most stepfamilies don't live together. And, many of the step parents come into the family after the parents have split up, most likely having put some sort of strain on the children already.

You would be a lot closer in comparing polygamous marriage with those that have live-in extended families. This is how most of my family is. Almost every child in my family has lived with people that weren't their family members for an extended length of time (1 year or greater). My sister lives with me now to help me by watching the children when I have drill, and adding an extra income to the household. This is a lot closer to polygamy than stepfamily.

Also, there are plenty of people that used to argue, and some that still argue, that interracial relationships are harmful to the offspring of such relationships because it is hard for the children to find a place to belong. Now, I'm not saying I agree with this, but it was one of the popular arguments when interracial marriages were outlawed in almost half the states.

Again, you missed the point. I was not arguing against polygamy. I was disproving the premise that someone else's marriage must effect my marriage in order for me to care.

I don't see how anything you've said in this post substantiates that premise.
 
Last edited:
Standard anti-gay marriage tactic: change the subject.
 
Right, and any such law does not change an appendix.
Which is exactly the point.


Any discussion of gay-marriage automatically precludes my marriage as I'm not gay, therefore so what if it doesn't affect my marriage. I'm effected by other people's marriages in other perfectly valid ways. I say gay-marriage does effect my marriage though symbolic interactionism, that changing the institution changes every marriage in that institution, but so what? Effecting me is not a requirement to support or oppose in any way.
How?
Does it change the relationship you personally and legally have with your wife?
Does it change the relationship you personally and legally have with your children (if any)?
Does it change the validity of the commitment you make to your partner or before your god when you marry?

It does not in actual fact effect your marraige in any material way what so ever.
And I would suggest that if two people who you don't know and have never met are allowed to marry somehow cheapens your value of the institution that you comitted to, then you underestemate the strenght of that institution.

Calling back to polygamy, maybe I wouldn't want to support it because of how Obama's UHC would raise my taxes to cover additional spouses. Maybe there are special rules which I think are harmful to the economy.
Really?
You do realize that both people would be covered prior to their nuptuals anyway.......

Maybe I could show how polygamy creates a step-parent dynamic within the lawfully married polygamist group and how this dynamic harms the children of that home is ways identical to step-parent couples typically do.
This is bollox.
I am a step parent. And I'm here to tell you that just like natural parents you can make a complete dogs brekfast of it very easily. You can also make a pretty darn good job of it. It's down to an individual thing.

Maybe there's no problem with polygamy itself, but in it's modern context legalizing polygamy would give a harmful cultural force (sharia law) political influence I'd rather they didn't have.

It doesn't have to effect my marriage for me to oppose.

You do realize that poligamy happens much more than you think. And it's not illegal. Every instance of adultery can be described as poligamy in the strictest sence.
Then you have yoour serial monogamists. Those who divorce and remarry, these create the exact same situations that you fear in poligamist marraiges.

But funnily enough, I have yet to hear a conservative come out against divorce. I'm sure they exist. I just haven't heard it that often.
 
Back
Top Bottom