• 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!

Do you support legalizing gay marriage?[W:667]

Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

CaptainCourtesy said:
Townhall.com is a conservative website... meaning that conservatives frequent it... meaning that any results will be biased and irrelevant.
Click to expand...

NP HAS to rely on outliers in order to make his spin. This is completely consistent with his M/O
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

Papa bull said:
No. It would mean that there are places where the law has been amended to create the oxymoron of homosexual marriage. It doesn't mean it's not an oxymoron.
Click to expand...

Actually, what it means is that it being an oxymoron is your opinion.
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

Papa bull said:
Since male and female actually IS what nature intended, I can understand why no one calls an interracial marriage an oxymoron because as long as it's one from the female of the species and one from the male of the species, it still makes sense. Of course, racists would oppose it but not because it's not marriage, but, ironically, because it IS the very nature and purpose of marriage that they would find so loathsome between people of mixed race. While there's no doubt that homosexual relationships are real relationships, they simply can't truly be marital relationships by any reasonable expectation of the purpose and design of marriage. While I do find this to be a conundrum because I think homosexuals should have access to the same protections that marriage affords, I'm just not convinced that just extending the definition of marriage to accommodate that makes sense. It's the simplest solution but it creates an oxymoron because two people of the same sex can't be a natural marriage. That's my opinion and I know it's not one shared by everyone and that's cool with me. I don't think it's necessary for everyone to share my opinion on anything.
Click to expand...

The problem here is what you believe is the purpose of marriage. You seem to believe it's procreation. It isn't.
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

Papa bull said:
It revolves around the basic nature of mammal biology that parings are always between a male and female of the species. Whether they're fertile or not isn't the defining criteria.
Click to expand...

Ah. The appeal to tradition logical fallacy.
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

disneydude said:
NP HAS to rely on outliers in order to make his spin. This is completely consistent with his M/O
Click to expand...

It's not even an outlier. If the idea is to show how much Americans support or oppose same-sex marriage, it's just a bad, unscientific poll. Roughly as accurate as polling approval of the New York Yankees and only asking people in Boston.
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

NIMBY said:
So if the LGBT community doesn't get all they want by the election of 2014 as in 2010, will they sit out this election as both they and the Blacks did in 2010, throwing the House to the GOP? Real smooth move there. Get registered to vote and then vote .
Click to expand...
Where did that come from?? I haven't seen or heard a single voice in the LGBT news outlets that have said anything remotely close to that (boycotting, etc.).
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

CaptainCourtesy said:
The problem here is what you believe is the purpose of marriage. You seem to believe it's procreation. It isn't.
Click to expand...

Actually, I believe the purpose of marriage is to provide legal framework for support of the natural pairing of a man and a woman into a bonded couple. Merely being one of each sex meets the criteria of being the natural form for bonded couples to take. Successfully procreating isn't the defining characteristic.
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

Papa bull said:
Actually, I believe the purpose of marriage is to provide legal framework for support of the natural pairing of a man and a woman into a bonded couple. Merely being one of each sex meets the criteria of being the natural form for bonded couples to take. Successfully procreating isn't the defining characteristic.
Click to expand...

And therefore is not a barrier to same-sex couples to receive the same benefits of said legal framework.

So all you are left is with "it's supposed to be a man and a woman because that's natural."

And you think that's good enough for an equal protection challenge requiring intermediate constitutional scrutiny?
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

CaptainCourtesy said:
Ah. The appeal to tradition logical fallacy.
Click to expand...

It's not a fallacy that natural mamallian pairings are male plus female. The fact that natural is also traditional doesn't make it an "appeal to tradition" logical fallacy. It's an "appeal to common sense" logical conclusion.
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

Deuce said:
And therefore is not a barrier to same-sex couples to receive the same benefits of said legal framework.

So all you are left is with "it's supposed to be a man and a woman because that's natural."

And you think that's good enough for an equal protection challenge requiring intermediate constitutional scrutiny?
Click to expand...

Yep, that's what I'm left with and I think it's sufficient that marriage was designed to support the natural state, not whatever deviant square peg of a sexual relationship people want to pound into the round hole of marriage.
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

Papa bull said:
It's not a fallacy that natural mamallian pairings are male plus female. The fact that natural is also traditional doesn't make it an "appeal to tradition" logical fallacy. It's an "appeal to common sense" logical conclusion.
Click to expand...

natural is not a basis for laws. Shall we ban diet-soda because it isn't natural?

Here are the facts that you seem to ignore.

Being gay is legal.
Gays living together is legal.
Gays having sex is legal.
Gays raising children is legal.

Therefore gays getting married should be legal as well. Now THAT is common sense. Your side lost a long time ago.
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

TheNextEra said:
natural is not a basis for laws. Shall we ban diet-soda because it isn't natural?

Here are the facts that you seem to ignore.

Being gay is legal.
Gays living together is legal.
Gays having sex is legal.
Gays raising children is legal.

Therefore gays getting married should be legal as well. Now THAT is common sense. Your side lost a long time ago.
Click to expand...

Natural is absolutely a basis for laws. You can't bugger a horse because it's unnatural. Maybe you think you should be able to but the law says you can't.

I suppose that'll be the next prohibition on the list for freedom fighters like yourself to assault. :lol:
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

Papa bull said:
Natural is absolutely a basis for laws. You can't bugger a horse because it's unnatural. Maybe you think you should be able to but the law says you can't.
Click to expand...

Actually the whole reason you can't isn't because it is unatural it is because a horse cannot LEGALLY consent. However, I find it most interesting that the ones that bring up buggering animals are conservatives.

I suppose that'll be the next prohibition on the list for freedom fighters like yourself to assault. :lol:
Click to expand...

Ah yes, another slippery slope fallacy from a side who has lost and is throwing a mantrum about it.
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

Papa bull said:
It's not a fallacy that natural mamallian pairings are male plus female. The fact that natural is also traditional doesn't make it an "appeal to tradition" logical fallacy. It's an "appeal to common sense" logical conclusion.
Click to expand...

Why do genitals have any precedence in determining what a "natural pairing" can be????
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

TheNextEra said:
Actually the whole reason you can't isn't because it is unatural it is because a horse cannot LEGALLY consent. However, I find it most interesting that the ones that bring up buggering animals are conservatives.
Click to expand...

Wrong. You only need consent to have sex with human beings. Bestiality, incest and other similar perversions are illegal because they are unnatural and unacceptable behaviors.
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

Dragonfly said:
I believe there's some rather disturbing videos on the interwebz that prove you're quite wrong. :shock:
Click to expand...

Oh, well, right you are. It's simply not legal. :) Thank you for helping to make the point for those that are slow on the uptake.
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

Papa bull said:
It's not a fallacy that natural mamallian pairings are male plus female. The fact that natural is also traditional doesn't make it an "appeal to tradition" logical fallacy. It's an "appeal to common sense" logical conclusion.
Click to expand...

Appeal to nature is also a logical fallacy. Just because something is natural does not make it good or bad, right or wrong.
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

Papa bull said:
Wrong. You only need consent to have sex with human beings. Bestiality, incest and other similar perversions are illegal because they are unnatural and unacceptable behaviors.
Click to expand...

And yet here you are thinking about all of them. Hmmmmmmmmmm.
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

Papa bull said:
Yep, that's what I'm left with and I think it's sufficient that marriage was designed to support the natural state, not whatever deviant square peg of a sexual relationship people want to pound into the round hole of marriage.
Click to expand...

Homosexuality occurs in nature. Space travel does not.

Explain how "natural" makes a legal argument, then.
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

brothern said:
Where did that come from?? I haven't seen or heard a single voice in the LGBT news outlets that have said anything remotely close to that (boycotting, etc.).
Click to expand...

If you look at the demographics of who voted in 2010, you can't miss it. Obama didn't do enough in his first two years for LGBTs they think but did too much according to GOPs. And now Rand Paul is making serious inroads into the OWS/GLBT crowds except on Abortion .
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

Deuce said:
Homosexuality occurs in nature. Space travel does not.
Click to expand...
Sure it does. An asteroid or comet hits earth and blows material into space with the force of the impact. Whala! Space travel.
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

I do not support it, but I think ya'll knew that. ;)

Tim-
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

Papa bull said:
Natural is absolutely a basis for laws. You can't bugger a horse because it's unnatural. Maybe you think you should be able to but the law says you can't.

I suppose that'll be the next prohibition on the list for freedom fighters like yourself to assault. :lol:
Click to expand...

Horses can't consent to sexual activity. Same with children. Girls sometimes hit puberty at like 13. So is it natural to have sex with them then? Are you going to defend pedophiles as natural now? Man, you "it's natural so it's ok" people make me sick.
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

Ockham said:
Sure it does. An asteroid or comet hits earth and blows material into space with the force of the impact. Whala! Space travel.
Click to expand...

Not for a being that requires oxygen to survive. Or pick any other "unnatural" thing humans do. Like argue about individual liberty over a network of computers, and vote to take away someone else's freedom.

You know, the readily-apparent point of my post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom