• 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!

Ginsburg nation’s first Supreme Court justice to officiate a same-sex ceremony

The same as having seperate drinking fountains for blacks. The people who think that black people are "icky" and shouldn't have to share space with them are just going to have to get used to it. "Seperate but equal" is a failed doctrine.

A poor comparison, but I think I get your point. I don't agree with it, but I get it.
 
A poor comparison, but I think I get your point. I don't agree with it, but I get it.

Not a poor comparison at all. The history of this country is filled with situations where certain people think another people are "icky" and shouldn't be entitled to the same rights and privileges that they enjoy. This applies be it gay marriage, drinking fountains, voting rights, etc.
 
Do you also think that it is a sad thing that people are gay?

Not at all. What is sad is people who can only equate marriage with sexual activity. You don't need marriage for sexual activity and marriage is so much more than sex.
 
Not a poor comparison at all. The history of this country is filled with situations where certain people think another people are "icky" and shouldn't be entitled to the same rights and privileges that they enjoy. This applies be it gay marriage, drinking fountains, voting rights, etc.

Well, I can't speak for those people, just myself. That doesn't apply to me.
 
Not at all. What is sad is people who can only equate marriage with sexual activity. You don't need marriage for sexual activity and marriage is so much more than sex.

It is sad in a way, though. But, I am sure you disagree. The Earth is orbiting the sun. I just wanted to post something you might not disagree with.
 
It is sad in a way, though. But, I am sure you disagree. The Earth is orbiting the sun. I just wanted to post something you might not disagree with.

There are many things that I don't disagree with. I believe strongly that everyone is entitled to their own personal views, even bigoted ones. What they are not entitled to is imposing that view another individual where it directly imposes on that individuals rights/privileges. In other words, a person's right to their view ends where it impacts those of another.
 
There are many things that I don't disagree with. I believe strongly that everyone is entitled to their own personal views, even bigoted ones. What they are not entitled to is imposing that view another individual where it directly imposes on that individuals rights/privileges. In other words, a person's right to their view ends where it impacts those of another.

That is so true! Everyone can think what they want, even those bigots, and others are free to think that people with religous beliefs are bigots, though they are not. No one can claim something as a right, if it precludes someone else from the same right. And no one can force something on someone else... well, except the government, these days.
 
That is so true! Everyone can think what they want, even those bigots, and others are free to think that people with religous beliefs are bigots, though they are not. No one can claim something as a right, if it precludes someone else from the same right. And no one can force something on someone else... well, except the government, these days.

Glad to see that you are a supporter of marriage equality.
 
Glad to see that you are a supporter of marriage equality.

Well, yes, I do support that any man should have the right to marry any woman, I am glad we agree there. And a gay couple should have the right to a civil union.
 
No one can claim something as a right, if it precludes someone else from the same right. And no one can force something on someone else... well, except the government, these days.

That is not marriage equality. I guess you only truly believe in the things you claim to a point.
 
That is not marriage equality. I guess you only truly believe in the things you claim to a point.

Yes, only to a point. I don't include made up stuff, misunderstanding, don't believe you're lyin' eyes, hidden political agendas for votes, and people that lie to themselves.

Well, time for lunch. And to move on to more important stuff, like the rest of the stuff going on that is destroying our country. The gay union/marriage stuff is a concern to me, but I must admit that it is way, way down on the list.
 
See my post no. 44.

1. Marriage--as defined as being between men and women exclusively--is the basis for any culture.

A: Bull****. It's not the basis for the culture. Property rights are the basis for the culture.
B: So what. You're not harmed by a homosexual getting married.

2. Fatherless homes are the number one predictor of antisocial behavior in teens.

So then homes with 2 fathers should be twice as good, right?

No harm.


3. Maternal deprivation is shown to increase a child’s incidence of alcoholism and impulsiveness

So do you want to outlaw divorce? If not, then this argument is horse crap.


4. A change in the definition of marriage only hurts the institution of marriage and thus society as a whole.

How did you get to "thus society as a whole"? Can you demonstrate that society suffers as a result of divorce? Do you have proof that there is wide spread harm?

Consider that marriage used to be a permanent institution and divorce was a rather rate occurrence until “no-fault divorce” became law and divorce became easier to obtain. Today nearly half of all marriages end in divorce and the impact on children in devastating.

So then gay marriages, and divorces without children, is okay with you?

5. As a result of high divorce rates many couples choose to live together without the benefit, responsibilities and obligations of marriage. This, too, has a dangerous affect on marriage as those who live together first and then marry are more likely to get divorced, once again, harming any children involved.

If there are no children, then your argument is again invalid. That just assumes that your argument is valid, at all, but specifically if there are no children.

6. The state provides divorce courts, child services, women services, etc. all relating to the break-up of families. It is a multi-billion dollar expense that tax-payers must absorb. As such the state would be better off limiting divorces to the best of their ability (limiting marriage to it traditional sense: one man + one woman for life).

No. You're skipping equal protection under the law. This may be an arugment for the state getting out of marriages, altogether, but not for violating the Constitutional principle of equality.

7. As marriage comes to mean less and less, people are relying less and less on the institution. One of the newer trends in relationships involves the “hook up”, where an individual finds a sexual outlet in another person for a time. There is only a minimal, in any, relationship outside a sexual relationship. Children born out of such arrangements will suffer.

Again, falling on children.

All of your arguments are "but think of the children!". Since that's your entire argument, skipping over the generally false nature of it, but, for argument, since but think of the children! is the sum total of your argument against gay marriage, then you're surely not opposed to gay marriages with no children. If not, then your entire argument, but think of the children!, is nonsense.

Further, you still can't prove any of this. You're making assertions without any factual basis, such as, "all civilizations are based on marriage". They're not. They're based on property rights, and marriage was originally just a father granting property rights over his daughter to another man.

Since historical marriage was usually polygamous and involved underage brides, do you condone that?
 
So you support pedophilia?

No. There is harm in that. Harm that can be demonstrated and proven. Child sex assaults are among the most destructive and repulsive assaults that can happen to a person. Comparing a viscous and destructive attack on a child to two consenting adults having sex means you either actually are a homophobe, or you don't have a major problem with sex abuse of children.

What makes you think that two consenting adults having sex in privacy is on par with child abuse?
 
How is everyone treated equally under the law when some people are told their relationship is illegal and some people aren't?

Further, what harm does it do you if all people get the same treatment by the law?

So you support pedophilia?

No. There is harm in that. Harm that can be demonstrated and proven. Child sex assaults are among the most destructive and repulsive assaults that can happen to a person. Comparing a viscous and destructive attack on a child to two consenting adults having sex means you either actually are a homophobe, or you don't have a major problem with sex abuse of children.

What makes you think that two consenting adults having sex in privacy is on par with child abuse?

Your absurd conclusions about me because I asked you a question based upon your comment aside for its juvenile nature, you don't believe in equal treatment of relationships under the law as you alleged you do. Thanks for proving you are another "because that is how I want it" thinker and not someone who actually believes in the principles they proffer in a blanket fashion only when convenient and then immediately contradict when convenient.
 
Your absurd conclusions about me because I asked you a question based upon your comment aside for its juvenile nature, you don't believe in equal treatment of relationships under the law as you alleged you do. Thanks for proving you are another "because that is how I want it" thinker and not someone who actually believes in the principles they proffer in a blanket fashion only when convenient and then immediately contradict when convenient.

An abuser raping a child is not a "relationship". The fact that you think it is demonstrates an extreme level of illness.
 
An abuser raping a child is not a "relationship". The fact that you think it is demonstrates an extreme level of illness.

When did I allege it was?

Don't project your lack of morality on me. You are the one who is contradicting themselves. When you actually find a real guiding principle within your thinking, let me know, otherwise your hypocrisy is too pedantic and boring to even be worth the energy....
 
When did I allege it was?

Don't project your lack of morality on me. You are the one who is contradicting themselves. When you actually find a real guiding principle within your thinking, let me know, otherwise your hypocrisy is too pedantic and boring to even be worth the energy....

That's exactly what you said. I said all relationships should be treated under the law. You asked if that included pedophilia. I said no, then you said, "you don't believe in equal treatment of relationships under the law", because I said that doesn't apply to pedophilia. You are directly stating that child rape is a "relationship".
 
That's exactly what you said. I said all relationships should be treated under the law. You asked if that included pedophilia. I said no, then you said, "you don't believe in equal treatment of relationships under the law", because I said that doesn't apply to pedophilia. You are directly stating that child rape is a "relationship".

No, you have proven yourself a liar. No point furthering a discussion with a liar.
 
So you support pedophilia?

anytime a person brings up pedophilia in discussions about equal gay rights or gay marriage its an instant and obvious fail
 
A: Bull****. It's not the basis for the culture. Property rights are the basis for the culture.

I’m gonna give you this one. I misspoke. I meant to say, “Marriage--as defined as being between men and women--is the basis for any society.”

B: So what. You're not harmed by a homosexual getting married.

Did you even read my post no. 44?

So then homes with 2 fathers should be twice as good, right?

Is this your idea of a serious argument?

So do you want to outlaw divorce? If not, then this argument is horse crap.

What I would like to outlaw is no-fault divorce.

How did you get to "thus society as a whole"? Can you demonstrate that society suffers as a result of divorce? Do you have proof that there is wide spread harm?

Seriously, did you even bother to read my post?

So then gay marriages, and divorces without children, is okay with you?

Once again, is this your idea of a serious argument?

If there are no children, then your argument is again invalid. That just assumes that your argument is valid, at all, but specifically if there are no children.
So you think divorce is only harmful if children are involved? Have you ever known anyone going through a divorce? It is one of the lowest points of anyone’s life.

No. You're skipping equal protection under the law. This may be an arugment for the state getting out of marriages, altogether, but not for violating the Constitutional principle of equality.

Your argument assumes that homosexual marriage are equal with heterosexual marriages.

That is simply not the case.

All of your arguments are "but think of the children!". Since that's your entire argument, skipping over the generally false nature of it, but, for argument, since but think of the children! is the sum total of your argument against gay marriage, then you're surely not opposed to gay marriages with no children. If not, then your entire argument, but think of the children!, is nonsense.

Except you’d have to ignore my entire post.

1. You fail to recognize the harm done to society my antisocial teens and young adults. You need not look any further than your local prison to even begin to understand the impact on society in terms of victims and tax-payer cost.

2. You forget that divorce is a multi-billion dollar a year industry with the tab being picked-up by tax-payers.

Further, you still can't prove any of this. You're making assertions without any factual basis, such as, "all civilizations are based on marriage". They're not. They're based on property rights, and marriage was originally just a father granting property rights over his daughter to another man.

Yea, sorry. I copied this from another post I made because it made all the points I wanted to but when I copied it the links did not copy over. My bad!

See here.

Further Since historical marriage was usually polygamous and involved underage brides, do you condone that?

I disagree with anything that goes against God’s created order.
 
Back
Top Bottom