• 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!

'Gay' columnist blasts same-sex marriage

I kinda se eyour point, however it doesn't address the core of my question. My question concerned why it's important for two of the same sex to have a traditional marriage if it's not important for that marriage to have the traditional participants.

The main reason is civil unions do not protect their rights the same as a marriage does especially when dealing with other states. Health care choices can be denied to the same sex partner in other states then the one issuing the civil union. Problems can come up with inheritance and custody as well.

A lesser concern with mine is I do not believe in "seperate but equal". There should not be two different ways of doing the same thing in the law.
 
I wonder why I keep writing responses because it's as if no one actually reads my posts...All i am trying to say is that a mother's love is important, agree? or disagree?

i've said more than several times that gay couples are more than able to adopt and raise children for Christ sake's I'm not denying them any rights, but why not give the child first the opportunity to have an adoptive mother??? I'm not forcing anyone to do anything...or causing loveless marriages???

No i do not agree. Gender has no impact on attachment. The newborn becomes attached to a few people who spend time with it, which usually includes the mother. Obviously an adopted kid will have been cut off from those attachments and have to form new ones, but the gender doesn't matter.

Why not? Because it's discriminatory, senseless, and will and has led to sham marriages when a person can't have kids thru other means.

Way to totally ignore the scenario i gave of gay couples involving the female relative. Looks like you need to learn to read yourself.
 
I can see that you've misunderstood everything I said...this is the problem with our society, we've blinded ourselves into thinking that al that is important is gay rights gay rights...adopting children has nothing to do with gay rights. And of course if you place an extreme between a gay couple who is normal and a white trash family the gay couple would adopt. Anyways there's no point in debating because youre not getting my point. You're creating a situation where it's either lousy parents or gay parents. We need to stop acting like every gay couple is the saviour to children.

Adoption is crucial to gay rights because it's the primary means of having kids. Those "extremes" are actually the norm, given 50% divorce rate. Now if you aren't willing to take kids away from divorced parents, because after all owning kids "has nothing to do with" heterosexual rights either, then i call BS on your "think of the children." Clearly to you that only applies when it comes to denigrating gay couples.
 
Last edited:
The main reason is civil unions do not protect their rights the same as a marriage does especially when dealing with other states. Health care choices can be denied to the same sex partner in other states then the one issuing the civil union. Problems can come up with inheritance and custody as well.

A lesser concern with mine is I do not believe in "seperate but equal". There should not be two different ways of doing the same thing in the law.

Separate but equal has merit, however if it's something different, doesn't it deserve it's own institution?
 
Separate but equal has merit, however if it's something different, doesn't it deserve it's own institution?

Seperate but equal is never equal. I dont see any difference besides the genders of the participants between the two. I dont think anything should legally be different because of genders.
 
Seperate but equal is never equal. I dont see any difference besides the genders of the participants between the two. I dont think anything should legally be different because of genders.

Traditionally, marriage has been between a man and a woman. Why would a non-traditional couple need a traditional marriage?
 
Traditionally, marriage has been between a man and a woman. Why would a non-traditional couple need a traditional marriage?

To have the same rights.
 
Separate but equal has merit, however if it's something different, doesn't it deserve it's own institution?

How is it different?

Marriage has had different definitions before, even in this country. Should we have called bi-racial marriage something different? Was polygamy not 'marriage?

So those involved race and multiple individuals. WHy cant the definition include same gender as well? Is gender different/better/worse than race or more people?
 
Traditionally, marriage has been between a man and a woman. Why would a non-traditional couple need a traditional marriage?

Gay couples dont necessarily consider themselves 'non-traditional'. That is a label others usually apply.

"marriage" means the same thing to them. "traditional" marriage.
 
There you go overgeneralizing again. I've always been in support of civil unions.

"In support of" and "not opposed to" are different things. If you support something then you go out of your way to advocate for it and politically support only those who share the same position. Whereas if you are simply not opposed to something then you are willing to suggest it as an alternative but you do not really care if it is instituted or not and you do not go out of your way to push for it or support those who do.

Nothing you have ever posted on this forum leads me to believe you support civil unions or any gay rights. But you could easily prove me wrong. Start a thread right now advocating that your conservative brethren repeal all state bans against civil unions and I will believe you support them and are not just simply lacking in opposition to them.

If you cannot do that much then you have proven exactly why civil unions are not a real option and they serve only as a distraction.
 
Last edited:
Traditionally, marriage has been between a man and a woman. Why would a non-traditional couple need a traditional marriage?

Traditionally, marriage was between a man and a woman of the SAME race. Should interracial marriage been called something else besides "marriage" like "bi-racial union"?

Things change, definitions change.
 
"In support of" and "not opposed to" are different things. If you support something then you go out of your way to advocate for it and politically support only those who share the same position. Whereas if you are simply not opposed to something then you are willing to suggest it as an alternative but you do not really care if it is instituted or not and you do not go out of your way to push for it or support those who do.

Nothing you have ever posted on this forum leads me to believe you support civil unions or any gay rights. But you could easily prove me wrong. Start a thread right now advocating that your conservative brethren repeal all state bans against civil unions and I will believe you support them and are not just simply lacking in opposition to them.

If you cannot do that much then you have proven exactly why civil unions are not a real option and they serve only as a distraction.

Well, at risk of not impressing you, I'm not going to go out of my way to impress you.

I've repeatedly said I support civil unions, have never argued against them and have never not voted for someone solely based on their support of civil unions. I have discussed support of civil unions at local political meetings...both Democrat and Republican. So, beleive what you like. It's my opinion that regardless of your personal opinion on gay marriage, there is nothing in the constitution that bans any two consenting people from entering into a marriage-like relationship.
 
Traditionally, marriage was between a man and a woman of the SAME race. Should interracial marriage been called something else besides "marriage" like "bi-racial union"?

Things change, definitions change.

Interracial marriages are as old as the hills. It is only for a brief period, mainly in the US, where interracial marriage was a particular concern.
 
How is it different?

Marriage has had different definitions before, even in this country. Should we have called bi-racial marriage something different? Was polygamy not 'marriage?

So those involved race and multiple individuals. WHy cant the definition include same gender as well? Is gender different/better/worse than race or more people?

There are very few instances in the history of human civilization where same sex marriages were legally sanctioned. And for the most part, where they were, it was for a very brief time.
 
Interracial marriages are as old as the hills. It is only for a brief period, mainly in the US, where interracial marriage was a particular concern.

You'll have to show where interracial marriages are as old as the hills. Also, you'll have to show why the state should have a stake in making gay marriage illegal. And please don't say it's for the children, gays can raise children WITHOUT being married.
 
You'll have to show where interracial marriages are as old as the hills. Also, you'll have to show why the state should have a stake in making gay marriage illegal. And please don't say it's for the children, gays can raise children WITHOUT being married.

Interracial marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have no interest in attempting to show the state's interest. I'm not arguing for or against anything here.
 
Well, at risk of not impressing you, I'm not going to go out of my way to impress you.

I've repeatedly said I support civil unions, have never argued against them and have never not voted for someone solely based on their support of civil unions. I have discussed support of civil unions at local political meetings...both Democrat and Republican. So, beleive what you like. It's my opinion that regardless of your personal opinion on gay marriage, there is nothing in the constitution that bans any two consenting people from entering into a marriage-like relationship.

You are on record for it. That is something. But I still wonder if you would be "for" civil unions if people were not seeking same sex marriage.
 
Interracial marriages are as old as the hills. It is only for a brief period, mainly in the US, where interracial marriage was a particular concern.

Really? Where?
 
There are very few instances in the history of human civilization where same sex marriages were legally sanctioned. And for the most part, where they were, it was for a very brief time.

You didnt answer the question (nothing new for you). If the definition can change for race or numbers, why not gender?

How is redefining on that basis any different?
 
You are on record for it. That is something. But I still wonder if you would be "for" civil unions if people were not seeking same sex marriage.

I would be. Mainly based on the legal ramifications.
 
You didnt answer the question (nothing new for you). If the definition can change for race or numbers, why not gender?

I did answer the question, just not the way you liked.

How is redefining on that basis any different?

It completely redefines the intstitution of marriage, whether you liked the original definition or not.
 
I did answer the question, just not the way you liked.

It completely redefines the intstitution of marriage, whether you liked the original definition or not.


OK, then changing it for bi-racial marriage and eliminating multiple spouses redefined it too. So it's nothing new and esp nothing new in recent history.

We already acknowledge redefining marriage to accommodate a changing society. There ya go. Thank you. My bad...I liked your answer just fine.
 
It completely redefines the intstitution of marriage, whether you liked the original definition or not.

Birth control redefined the institution. Same sex marriage was just the wake up call to conservatives that the world had changed and ideas about socially designated gender norms had changed.
 
Birth control redefined the institution. Same sex marriage was just the wake up call to conservatives that the world had changed and ideas about socially designated gender norms had changed.

I think your ignoring the difference between "had changed" and "attempting to change".
 
Back
Top Bottom