• 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

All of this begs the question of why the state cares about marriage at all. It shouldn't. It should remain a religious institution. But, if the state demands to be involved, it should let gay people marry, too.

Marriage is, pretty much, a contract. Someone has to be able to legally enforce said contract, or oversee its termination.

Marriage hasn't been a religious-only institution for a LONG time, be it in the U.S. or anywhere else. Back in the day, when adultery was prosecuted, adultery was not considered a sex crime. It was considered a property crime.

Seems pretty simple. The only people against it are jihading cultural conservatives.

Well yeah.
 
All of this begs the question of why the state cares about marriage at all. It shouldn't. It should remain a religious institution. But, if the state demands to be involved, it should let gay people marry, too.

Seems pretty simple. The only people against it are jihading cultural conservatives.

The best thing for raising a child is a stable home with two loving parents. Marriage promotes monogamy and stability. In that way, the state does have a compelling interest in marriage. And practically, it is not going to go away. There is zero real desire by any one except a few fringe libertarians to "get the government out of marriage".
 
The guy has more credibility on the subject than you do. His sexuality makes him untouchable.

That is baloney.

That is like "I have a black friend, so I now how all black people think"

Do you really think all gay people think the same way?
 
The best thing for raising a child is a stable home with two loving parents. Marriage promotes monogamy and stability. In that way, the state does have a compelling interest in marriage. And practically, it is not going to go away. There is zero real desire by any one except a few fringe libertarians to "get the government out of marriage".

Many people from every political spectrum think the government should get out of the marriage business and should never have gotten into it in the first place. The only reason it did was 1.) to try to buy votes by giving tax breaks and legal benefits to people who bought a marriage license from the government and 2.) money from marriage licenses.
 
That is baloney.

That is like "I have a black friend, so I now how all black people think"

Do you really think all gay people think the same way?

Those who think all gay folks want/approve of gay marriage seem to think this.
 
Those who think all gay folks want/approve of gay marriage seem to think this.

I do not know of ANYONE that thinks all gay people want gay marriage.

I live in an area with a large gay population. Yes. most of them want the OPPORTUNITY to be allowed to marry. But certainly not all.

But I would be curious as to your source that actually says ALL gay people want to be able to marry.
 
Yeah I guess, I mean Im neither here nor there on the issue. Obviously if there is a kid going from foster home to foster home and an honest gay couple want to adopt I don't see a problem. I just think that ideal circumstances for a kid are to have a mother and a father. But as i said, doesn't mean a child can't be raised properly in any other environment

I just do not get how this "ideal" relates to marriage.
 
Marriage is, pretty much, a contract. Someone has to be able to legally enforce said contract, or oversee its termination.

Marriage hasn't been a religious-only institution for a LONG time, be it in the U.S. or anywhere else. Back in the day, when adultery was prosecuted, adultery was not considered a sex crime. It was considered a property crime.

Then there can be a different contract for people wanting that recognition by the government. Two people telling each other (and their god, I guess, sometimes) that they're gonna be together forever should...ya know...be between the two of them.
 
The best thing for raising a child is a stable home with two loving parents. Marriage promotes monogamy and stability. In that way, the state does have a compelling interest in marriage.

Does it "promote" it? Or do people do that because they want to? Again, if two people decide to live together and share financial situations, let them. That doesn't need to be marriage, though. The whole thing seems kinda silly.


And practically, it is not going to go away. There is zero real desire by any one except a few fringe libertarians to "get the government out of marriage".

lol I wouldn't come close to describing myself as a libertarian, but then again I don't know if I care enough to say I have a "real" desire either way. Just pointing out common sense. I mean, I also think the nation would run better as an oligarchy, with only people with above average intelligence having a say in anything, but we know that's not practical for a variety of reasons, too. No reason not to say it, though.
 
No. See, you do not understand liberals at all. Saying some one should be treated the same as every one else does not mean they are above criticism.

But, you can bet your ass that if a Rightie criticized a gay columnist, he wouldn't see the end of being branded a homophobe and YOU goddamn well know, ma'am.
 
That is baloney.

That is like "I have a black friend, so I now how all black people think"

Do you really think all gay people think the same way?

Are you even awake?

People on this forum constantly insist that I must not be black, because I'm a Conservative.
 
But, you can bet your ass that if a Rightie criticized a gay columnist, he wouldn't see the end of being branded a homophobe and YOU goddamn well know, ma'am.

You can bet your ass you are wrong. What you are confused by is the difference between criticizing some one for being gay, and criticizing some one who is gay. There is a world of difference between the two.
 
Are you even awake?

People on this forum constantly insist that I must not be black, because I'm a Conservative.

I have not seen that, but do you think it is any less full of crap?

BTW, expressing surprise that a gay person is anti gay marriage is TOTALLY different than saying "all gay people want gay marriage"

Along the same lines , expressing surprise that a black person is a Republican is TOTALLY different than saying "no blacks are Republicans"


But as a Black person, do you think you speak for all Black people?

I would think, no.
 
Just because he's gay this somehow gives this tired old argument credence?

The argument is bull****.

I became a father a week and a half ago when my beautiful wife gave birth to a baby boy.

We're trying our best, but we're by no means perfect parents and from what I've experienced so far, all a child really needs is loving, supporting parents who give a crap about it...

This world is far from perfect, there's ALOT of bad parents out there and again, good parents are good parents, they'll never be perfect but if those good parents happen to be both of the same sex... so be it.
Congrats man! Parenthood is the greatest of endeavors. Enjoy it.
 
I have raised 4 kids, all I know about it is I dont know nuthin about it.
LOL. That's the truth man. It seems like every child is so different that it doesn't really matter what you learned with the previous ones.
 
I have not seen that, but do you think it is any less full of crap?

BTW, expressing surprise that a gay person is anti gay marriage is TOTALLY different than saying "all gay people want gay marriage"

Along the same lines , expressing surprise that a black person is a Republican is TOTALLY different than saying "no blacks are Republicans"


But as a Black person, do you think you speak for all Black people?

I would think, no.

Of course you haven't scene it. We already knew that...lol!
 
You can bet your ass you are wrong. What you are confused by is the difference between criticizing some one for being gay, and criticizing some one who is gay. There is a world of difference between the two.

Anyone that disagrees with a gay person's stance on gay marriage, is a homophobe. I'n sorry, but that's your standard, not mine.
 
Anyone that disagrees with a gay person's stance on gay marriage, is a homophobe. I'n sorry, but that's your standard, not mine.

Actually no, that is not my standard. Nice try though. Except for being wrong in every possible way.
 
Actually no, that is not my standard. Nice try though. Except for being wrong in every possible way.

Youve been complicit with it, for years. You own it.
 
Finally some sanity.

Using your logic, ahem:

You support ending our military engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Middle East in general because soldiers have spoken out against our being involved there militarily.

You support pro-choice because many women, perhaps the majority, have spoken out in favor of some form of abortion and/or birth control.

Shall I continue using your, ah, you know, logic?
 
Youve been complicit with it, for years. You own it.

No I have not. You don't get to just make stuff up.

Here, let me give you some quotes that might show just how wrong you are:

Actually I have. What you have not done if prove your claim that it has to be hate and homophobia. No amount of twisting my words and taking comments out of context will change the fact that there are arguments, which I presented, which oppose SSM without being hateful nor homophobic.

You jumped all over a guy who did nothing that affects you, all because you thought he was being a hypocrite(even though he wasn't), and when that argument failed, you try a tangent which you thought would work better, but has failed miserably too.

I support SSM. It is an important issue for me. I am one of the strongest proponents of SSM on this board. I do not need to demonize and call names of those who oppose SSM to win SSM arguments. Why do you?

It is entirely possible to disagree with SSM without being a homophobe. What you are doing is what many people around here do when they do not have a reasoned argument, they call names.
 
The guy has more credibility on the subject than you do. His sexuality makes him untouchable.

Are you even awake?

People on this forum constantly insist that I must not be black, because I'm a Conservative.

So, it is ok that you do the same thing?

The guy is gay so he must be more credible?

You just made the argument for "my one black friend speaks for all black people" argument.

If you are being sarcastic, you are not doing a very good job of showing it. Because right now, it just looks like you are just being plain ordinary run of the mill hypocritical.
 
No I have not. You don't get to just make stuff up.

Here, let me give you some quotes that might show just how wrong you are:

Redress, you can attest that I'm not making up anything
 
Last edited:
So, it is ok that you do the same thing?

The guy is gay so he must be more credible?

You just made the argument for "my one black friend speaks for all black people" argument.

If you are being sarcastic, you are not doing a very good job of showing it. Because right now, it just looks like you are just being plain ordinary run of the mill hypocritical.

Just holding the Leftists to their own standard. Don't like it? You people need to police your ranks.
 
Back
Top Bottom