• 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

No, I am not assuming anything.

Yes you are, watch:

I am explicitly saying that there is no rationale behind the people who don't want gay marriage. None whatsoever. Only bigotry.

Now, in their mind, they can justify their bigotry in a hundred ways. Bigots always do.

See? Told you so.
 
It's truly a shame that DC made this decision. I wonder if this decision was made by popular vote or some DC government thing. Anyway, the law is the law, regardless of if I agree with it morally or not.
 
Well how nice for them?:roll:

Forget the fact that they would rather marry the person they love. Not unlike yourself, I'm sure. No matter how much you all like to say that this is nothing like anti-miscegenation laws, you are wrong. It is a lot like them, unless you want to show me where the law requires that marriages must result in children or that the two people involved have to be able to have children.

Now, if the government decided that, yes, marriage is for the good of children, and that is why it exists, then you might have a case against gay marriage. Of course, the government has never actually said this, and doing so could easily put other people's marriages in question. I'm thinking especially about transgendered marriages, old people who want to get married, people who have some form of sterilization, and certain handicapped people.

However, since the government is in the business of giving special entitlements and privileges to people who get married without any care to whether or not those two people can actually produce offspring, then it really isn't fair for them to say that one group of people isn't eligible just because they can't produce offspring.

I would like to marry 2 or 3 women but I can't just like gays can't marry someone of the same sex...........If they are allowed to change the law why can't I?:confused:


The government says marriage is good for the family...It stabalizes it and helps with the rearing of children.......
 
Last edited:
I would like to marry 2 or 3 women but I can't just like gays can't marry someone of the same sex...........If they are allowed to change the law why can't I?:confused:

Go ahead and try to change the law.
 
Forget the fact that they would rather marry the person they love.

I don't give a **** about who anyone loves because love is not enough and love is not what marriage is about. Love supports a marriage, it is not the purpose of marriage.

Love who you want, **** who you want, but if your relationship doesn't fit the mold then it's not a 'marriage' even if the law says so.

These are universal truths persistent throughout human history regardless of time or culture, and no shallow political activist group is going to change that.
 
Anyone else notice that since this is DC, gay-marriage was just taken out of the "states rights" arena?

It's now a Federal matter.
 
I would like to marry 2 or 3 women but I can't just like gays can't marry someone of the same sex...........If they are allowed to change the law why can't I?:confused:


The government says marriage is good for the family...It stabalizes it and helps with the rearing of children.......

I have no problem with that as long as the all the women are ok with entering into a polygamous marriage. Change it if you really want to.

And gays have children. And they can adopt children.
 
I would like to marry 2 or 3 women but I can't just like gays can't marry someone of the same sex...........If they are allowed to change the law why can't I?:confused:

No reason at all. Go for it and I'd be right behind you. Polygamy should be legal too.
 
No reason at all. Go for it and I'd be right behind you. Polygamy should be legal too.

Polygamy is not nearly as conductive of a thriving economy as the nuclear family is, so I'm inclined to oppose it.
 
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.

So, you support a SEPARATE type of union for gays. One that is somewhat EQUAL to marriage in terms of rights, etc.

Separate but equal?

Where have I heard that before... it's oddly familiar...
 
That's what everything boils down to.

What's your point?

I am reminded of a song called "You can't always get what you want". :mrgreen:
 
No reason at all. Go for it and I'd be right behind you. Polygamy should be legal too.

I'll go one better. Clan Marriages. A marriage between 0 or more men and 0 or more women. You can really share the economic, household and educational duties with this type of marriage. Given 3 guys and 3 girls, say 2 guys and a girl work, 1 guy goes for a PhD, 1 girl travels for research in Turkey, and the last girl raises to 8 children. Or whatever. This is the way of the future where everyone has outside interests but you still want a nuclear family.
 
Polygamy is not nearly as conductive of a thriving economy as the nuclear family is, so I'm inclined to oppose it.

Prove it....
 
Polygamy is not nearly as conductive of a thriving economy as the nuclear family is, so I'm inclined to oppose it.

These are such cloudy areas. Do you limit the number of partners due to possible negative affect on economy ? Do you limit the number of children one can have with the Octomom in mind?

Perhaps neither you should legislate but just don't make the taxpayers rush in to pay for their tryst.
 
Anyone else notice that since this is DC, gay-marriage was just taken out of the "states rights" arena?

It's now a Federal matter.

Only for DC.
 
Separate but equal?

Where have I heard that before... it's oddly familiar...
You're probably thinking of some political initiatives you supported a while back as a member of the democrat party.
 
You're probably thinking of some political initiatives you supported a while back as a member of the democrat party.

It's a bit unfair to lay blame for those laws on Democrats. More accurately, it wasn't a party-line issue, it was a geographic issue. Southern Democrats and Southern Republicans were both vehemently against integrating the school system.

But we're getting way off track.

No conservative have ever satisfactorily answered two basic questions for me:

1) How does legalizing same-sex marriage affect you?

2) Why do you oppose legal rights being granted to same-sex couples? (hospital visitation, medical power of attorney, automatic inheritance, automatic custody of children in death of spouse, joint tax filing, protection from testifying against a spouse, transfer-of-property tax protection, social security benefits collected on death of spouse, immigration rights for spouse, I could go on for another couple pages...)

edit: And to ward off the "but it's being force upon us!" No, it isn't. Your church doesn't have to perform the ceremony, you don't have to attend the ceremony, and aren't going to be forced at gunpoint to marry a dude!
 
Last edited:
It's a bit unfair to lay blame for those laws on Democrats. More accurately, it wasn't a party-line issue, it was a geographic issue. Southern Democrats and Southern Republicans were both vehemently against integrating the school system.
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.
 
Last edited:
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.

Kinda like those damned straights, always wanting to push straight marriage in everyone's face. Forcing you to reognize it as MARRIAGE.
They just want to get in your face about it.
 
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.

Apparently it isn't the same thing. If it was, you wouldn't be complaining about them calling it a marriage.

They just insist on doing it in your face and forcing you to recognize it as MARRIAGE.

They aren't doing anything in your face. If you don't want to see them get married... Don't go to their ceremonies. How are they forcing you to recognize it as marriage? Did they hold you hostage or something? If so why don't you please share your story... It sounds interesting!

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.

Don't go to gay parades then, and stop watching American Idol. :)
 
Back
Top Bottom