• 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!

What is the primary reason behind your support for same-sex marriage? [W:539/549]

What is the primary reason behind your support for same-sex marriage?

  • Because I’m gay/lesbian

    Votes: 3 2.2%

  • Because it’s an equal rights issue

    Votes: 78 57.4%

  • Because gays/lesbians love each other too

    Votes: 6 4.4%

  • Because I despise bigots/haters

    Votes: 1 0.7%

  • Because I don’t want to be labeled a bigot

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • I’m opposed to gay marriage

    Votes: 13 9.6%

  • I don’t care, either way

    Votes: 16 11.8%

  • Other

    Votes: 19 14.0%
  • Total voters
    136
  • Poll closed .
OscarB63 said:
so all consenting adults of age should be able to get married?
Click to expand...

Sure. As long as that marriage is entirely outside of the scope of government.

Heck, if you want to marry your cat in a religious ceremony that grants no right at all to anyone, have at it. If you want to marry a hundred people in a similar handfasting ceremony that is only recognized by your drinking buddies, by all means.

Government should change marriage to a secular civil agreement between two unrelated, of age consenting people.
 
obvious Child said:
Sure. As long as that marriage is entirely outside of the scope of government.

Heck, if you want to marry your cat in a religious ceremony that grants no right at all to anyone, have at it. If you want to marry a hundred people in a similar handfasting ceremony that is only recognized by your drinking buddies, by all means.

Government should change marriage to a secular civil agreement between two unrelated, of age consenting people.
Click to expand...

That pretty much sums up my view on the topic.
 
obvious Child said:
Sure. As long as that marriage is entirely outside of the scope of government.

Heck, if you want to marry your cat in a religious ceremony that grants no right at all to anyone, have at it. If you want to marry a hundred people in a similar handfasting ceremony that is only recognized by your drinking buddies, by all means.

Government should change marriage to a secular civil agreement between two unrelated, of age consenting people.
Click to expand...

why limit it to two unrelated people? why can't 3 consenting people get married? why can't two related people get married? (FWIW there are already 7 states that allow first cousin marriage). why can't a gay dude marry his brother?
 
OscarB63 said:
why limit it to two unrelated people? why can't 3 consenting people get married?
Click to expand...

Because polygamy has a long history of massive human right abuses from Mormons to Islamic.

why can't two related people get married?
Click to expand...

Because genetic inbreeding causes problems down the line. I suppose if you're gay, that's fine to marry a related person. But considering how technology is advancing, it may be possible to recombine the DNA from two women into a single embyro. Last I checked, sperm carries far fewer genes and doesn't code for many vital processes. I'd be okay with letting two gay males who are related marry.
 
OscarB63 said:
why limit it to two unrelated people? why can't 3 consenting people get married? why can't two related people get married? (FWIW there are already 7 states that allow first cousin marriage). why can't a gay dude marry his brother?
Click to expand...

If 3 people can make a legal case that the state does not have a rational reason to keep them from marrying, then they will be able to. Likewise related people. Note that the arguments in court will be different than for SSM. That is because, surprise, SSM is not polygamy nor incest, no matter how hard you try and make them the same.
 
obvious Child said:
Because polygamy has a long history of massive human right abuses from Mormons to Islamic.
Click to expand...

and gays have a long history of abusing young boys in truckstop restroom :lamo



Because genetic inbreeding causes problems down the line. I suppose if you're gay, that's fine to marry a related person. But considering how technology is advancing, it may be possible to recombine the DNA from two women into a single embyro. Last I checked, sperm carries far fewer genes and doesn't code for many vital processes. I'd be okay with letting two gay males who are related marry.
Click to expand...

why can't two related people get married and have kids the same way gay couples have kids? that would get rid of your inbreeding complaint. (and FWIW, there are countless genetic defects that can be passed along from non-related parents and no one is suggesting that we keep them from getting married) IMHO, the inbreeding angle is just an excuse to keep from admitting an "ick" factor basis for arguing against relative marriages. and, for the most part, inbreeding only becomes a problem if it is continued for successive generations. being a country boy, i have seen dozens of animals procreate with siblings and parents without giving birth to tarded litters.
 
Redress said:
If 3 people can make a legal case that the state does not have a rational reason to keep them from marrying, then they will be able to. Likewise related people. Note that the arguments in court will be different than for SSM. That is because, surprise, SSM is not polygamy nor incest, no matter how hard you try and make them the same.
Click to expand...

boo dee hoo. no one is saying they are the same thing. but nice strawman. maybe you can take lessons from the little pig and build a straw house the next time.
 
Redress said:
Oh wait, you are right. He is not a nobody, he is a Greek fasist politician. I am still as credible as him.
Click to expand...

Sure you are
. Plato is quoted as commenting:

Homosexuality is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce. {4}

Given that only free adult men had full social status, women and male slaves were not problematic sexual partners. Sex between freemen, however, was problematic for status. The central distinction in ancient Greek sexual relations was between taking an active or insertive role, versus a passive or penetrated one. The passive role was acceptable only for inferiors, such as women, slaves, or male youths who were not yet citizens. Terms for the passive role were muliebria pati, "to submit to what is done to women" and aselgainein, "to defile oneself." The active role in Greek was hubrizein, "to exert force upon another." {12
Click to expand...

Laws against homosexual and pederastic relations « homosexuality-ancient-greece.wordpress.com
 
OscarB63 said:
boo dee hoo. no one is saying they are the same thing. but nice strawman. maybe you can take lessons from the little pig and build a straw house the next time.
Click to expand...

Way to avoid the argument. Your arguments have failed so many times, I can understand desperately avoiding defending them though.
 
Gawain said:
Being one I think I know them :)

And yes most men are sluts

Lesbians have no choice as they can only fool around :) They cant really have sex according to Clinton.
Click to expand...

No you dont know all men. Most men I know can keep it in their pants.

I really dont care what Clinton does or doesnt think. Lesbians can have sex. Although I would still say that fooling around with someone other then your partner isnt being monogamous so my point still stands.
 
Omgitsme said:
No you dont know all men. Most men I know can keep it in their pants.

I really dont care what Clinton does or doesnt think. Lesbians can have sex. Although I would still say that fooling around with someone other then your partner isnt being monogamous so my point still stands.
Click to expand...

:mrgreen:
YesWeCan!!!.jpg
 
Gawain said:
Good then I can marry my cat as well.
Click to expand...
The law applies to humans, not cats. You cannot enter into a contract with a cat, nor do cats pay taxes. Comparing gay marriage to marriage with a cat again I see. Probably the worst argument in the book.
 
Gawain said:
Easy its true.

They dont ask your sexual persuasion when going for a license nor should they
Click to expand...
If black people could obtain drivers licenses, but were prohibited from marrying white people, would the law be applied equally?

We are talking about marriage. And in the case of marriage, the law is not applied equally. Period.
 
Lakryte said:
If black people could obtain drivers licenses, but were prohibited from marrying white people, would the law be applied equally?

We are talking about marriage. And in the case of marriage, the law is not applied equally. Period.
Click to expand...

and the trouble is gay supporters still don't want it applied equally. oh they will squeal and bleat about "equal rights" until you bring up polygamy or incest and then suddenly it's a different story. they start grunting about "slippery slopes" and how it's equal rights when it comes to gay marriage but "new" rights when it comes to the other non-traditional groups.

hypocrites.

it should be none of the govt's or anyone else's business what consenting adults do with each other.

if a gay dude wants to marry his brother. whatever
if a straight dude wants to marry his sister. whatever
if two black dudes want to marry a white chick. whatever
if an asian dude wants to marry an eskimo and a bosnian. whatever

as long as all parties involved are consenting adults, people should just STFU, mind their own business and let them get married.
 
Omgitsme said:
Animals cant give consent. And before you bring it up neither can children.
Click to expand...

I guess i cant eat animals then either or use them for transport or their fur lol. Since when do we need consent from an animal?
 
Lakryte said:
If black people could obtain drivers licenses, but were prohibited from marrying white people, would the law be applied equally?

We are talking about marriage. And in the case of marriage, the law is not applied equally. Period.
Click to expand...

Can gay people get a marriage license? Why yes they can as long as one of them is male and the other female. Its the same for everyone.
 
Gawain said:
I guess i cant eat animals then either or use them for transport or their fur lol. Since when do we need consent from an animal?
Click to expand...

yeah, I never got that one either. you can kill an animal and eat it or wear its skin and that is perfectly O.K. but if you **** it it's abuse because it can't give consent.
 
Gawain said:
I guess i cant eat animals then either or use them for transport or their fur lol. Since when do we need consent from an animal?
Click to expand...

Its a requirement to signing a legal contract.
 
Equal rights issue. Specifically 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause and enlightened self-interest. If we let citizens be deprived of their rights due to religious reasons, bigotry or any other issue of prejudice, then we put our own liberties at risk.
 
OscarB63 said:
and the trouble is gay supporters still don't want it applied equally. oh they will squeal and bleat about "equal rights" until you bring up polygamy or incest and then suddenly it's a different story. they start grunting about "slippery slopes" and how it's equal rights when it comes to gay marriage but "new" rights when it comes to the other non-traditional groups.

hypocrites.

it should be none of the govt's or anyone else's business what consenting adults do with each other.

if a gay dude wants to marry his brother. whatever
if a straight dude wants to marry his sister. whatever
if two black dudes want to marry a white chick. whatever
if an asian dude wants to marry an eskimo and a bosnian. whatever

as long as all parties involved are consenting adults, people should just STFU, mind their own business and let them get married.
Click to expand...

This has been repeated to you time and again. How the point has not sunk in is any one guess. No one is saying that equal rights in every situation for every single person is a goal. It's not. We have age of consent laws for very good reasons. All any one is saying is that you need a very good reason to deny people the right to do something. Polygamy and incest, being different than SSM, are judged differently. If a good reason to deny marriage for those can be raised that reaches the legal level, then there is nothing wrong with denying marriage to those things. There is however no rational basis to deny SSM. At least 2 people have explained this to you in this very thread, and yet you continue to repeat the same failed argument. I wonder why....
 
Redress said:
This has been repeated to you time and again. How the point has not sunk in is any one guess. No one is saying that equal rights in every situation for every single person is a goal. It's not. We have age of consent laws for very good reasons. All any one is saying is that you need a very good reason to deny people the right to do something. Polygamy and incest, being different than SSM, are judged differently. If a good reason to deny marriage for those can be raised that reaches the legal level, then there is nothing wrong with denying marriage to those things. There is however no rational basis to deny SSM. At least 2 people have explained this to you in this very thread, and yet you continue to repeat the same failed argument. I wonder why....
Click to expand...

and the hypocrite continues his attack. sad really. I agree with you on the issue of SSM and yet you still continue to attack me because I don't support it in exactly the manner you wish. I wonder why.....

unlike you, my desire for equal rights are not limited only to people whose positions I agree with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom