• 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 .
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.

Where did I limit my desire for rights to people I agree with? Oh wait, I didn't, you made that up. Society has always limited rights, and that is appropriate. Children have fewer rights than adults. Convicted felons have restrictions on rights. Even rights like free speech and freedom of religion have limits. This is not hypocrisy. There are clear cut reasons for those limitations. Saying that marriage shod be allowed, except when the state has a rational interest in not allowing it is not hypocrisy, and in fact is consistent and is exactly what our laws call for.

I am sorry your failed example keeps failing. I am sorry your only argument is neither logical, consistent nor accurate. You might think about trying to find a working argument...but that would be hard.
 
and gays have a long history of abusing young boys in truckstop restroom :lamo

Except in gay marriage gays aren't marrying young boys. Try to fail a less less epically next time.

why can't two related people get married and have kids the same way gay couples have kids?

Because that would require some government program to ensure they don't have kids naturally. I'm pretty sure no one wants that level of intrusion, even the whacked out Social Conservatives.

(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)

True, but incest concentrates genetic defects far more then regular mitosis creates them.

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.

So your solution is to bar the next generation from marrying their relatives? I'm just going to roll my eyes at you.
 
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?

The very fact that you can eat an animal or use them for transport or use their fur without getting their legal consent to do so, proves that they do not have the equal rights as an adult human. They have no legal responsibility for themselves let alone being able to take some on for an adult human. They also cannot legally sign a contract.
 
Except in gay marriage gays aren't marrying young boys. Try to fail a less less epically next time.

It is an even worse fail than that. Pedophiles tend to prefer the opposite sex, not the same sex, in adult relationships, and overwhelmingly so. The idea that gays prey on children is absolutely false. However, since Oscar's whole argument is trying to equate gays with other groups, he has to keep pushing these lies.
 
It is an even worse fail than that. Pedophiles tend to prefer the opposite sex, not the same sex, in adult relationships, and overwhelmingly so. The idea that gays prey on children is absolutely false. However, since Oscar's whole argument is trying to equate gays with other groups, he has to keep pushing these lies.

Well, then there is the issue that pedophilia actually has little to do with the sex of the victim, but far more with the age and issues of power. There are plenty of straight boy scout leaders who got caught molesting young boys. Maybe we should ban heteros from marriage?

Fundamentally, I believe people are against gay marriage because of Religion and because they think it's Icky. Neither of which are valid reasons to deny rights. We don't bar 70 year olds from marrying people young enough to be their grandkids (Hugh Hefner just got married to a 30 year old). That's WAY more icky then two lesbians getting married.

People against gay marriage should just suck it up, be honest (you know actually follow what Christ said you hypocrites!) and come out with their real reason.
 
Well, then there is the issue that pedophilia actually has little to do with the sex of the victim, but far more with the age and issues of power. There are plenty of straight boy scout leaders who got caught molesting young boys. Maybe we should ban heteros from marriage?

Fundamentally, I believe people are against gay marriage because of Religion and because they think it's Icky. Neither of which are valid reasons to deny rights. We don't bar 70 year olds from marrying people young enough to be their grandkids (Hugh Hefner just got married to a 30 year old). That's WAY more icky then two lesbians getting married.

People against gay marriage should just suck it up, be honest (you know actually follow what Christ said you hypocrites!) and come out with their real reason.

Basically correct. I beleive the number one thing that determines the gender of a child molested by a pedophile is access. SSM has nothing to do with pedophilia, nothing to do with incest, nothing to do with polygamy, nothing to do with bestiality. And yet those things are brought into every single thread on the topic. The issue is that there are no logical arguments against SSM, only emotional ones. Therefore the need for crappy debate tactics like trying to tie SSM with other, unrelated groups.
 
It is an even worse fail than that. Pedophiles tend to prefer the opposite sex, not the same sex, in adult relationships, and overwhelmingly so. The idea that gays prey on children is absolutely false. However, since Oscar's whole argument is trying to equate gays with other groups, he has to keep pushing these lies.

I think what you were trying to say is that pedophiles are pedophiles not homosexuals. That being said though if you look online there is a good deal of porn that caters to men who like boys. And one could dig up plenty of pedophile men that assaulted boys. Which the anti-gay league has been exploiting the reality of these type of pedophiles for years as why they oppose homosexuality. But they leave out the fact that an equal amount of pedophiles assault girls as well. It is a very dishonest tactic because pedophiles are not after sex they are attacking their victims for other reasons. Many cases of pedophile attacks on children did not even involve any sexual abuse at all.
 
And we will not have, nor are we going to implement, your form of Communism in this country.

I hope you provide ample evidence of Redess' communism,or you just broke the 9th Commandment once more.
 
Well, then there is the issue that pedophilia actually has little to do with the sex of the victim, but far more with the age and issues of power. There are plenty of straight boy scout leaders who got caught molesting young boys. Maybe we should ban heteros from marriage?

Fundamentally, I believe people are against gay marriage because of Religion and because they think it's Icky. Neither of which are valid reasons to deny rights. We don't bar 70 year olds from marrying people young enough to be their grandkids (Hugh Hefner just got married to a 30 year old). That's WAY more icky then two lesbians getting married.

People against gay marriage should just suck it up, be honest (you know actually follow what Christ said you hypocrites!) and come out with their real reason.

fundamentally, I believe people are against incest marriage because they think it's icky. which is not a valid reason to deny rights. as far as Hugh Hefner marrying a 30 y/o being way more icky than two lesbian...I guess that is a matter of personal preference.

some people think old dudes marrying young women is icky, some people think two dudes bumping uglies is icky, some people think incest is icky.

just because you think something is icky, doesn't make it a valid reason to deny them rights.
 
Basically correct. I beleive the number one thing that determines the gender of a child molested by a pedophile is access. SSM has nothing to do with pedophilia, nothing to do with incest, nothing to do with polygamy, nothing to do with bestiality. And yet those things are brought into every single thread on the topic. The issue is that there are no logical arguments against SSM, only emotional ones. Therefore the need for crappy debate tactics like trying to tie SSM with other, unrelated groups.

and yet in every thread on SSM and "rights' someone always brings up slavery and racial equality. which has equally nothing to do with SSM as does incest, bestiality,polygamy etc. but no one ever sees you crying about that.
 
and yet in every thread on SSM and "rights' someone always brings up slavery and racial equality. which has equally nothing to do with SSM as does incest, bestiality,polygamy etc. but no one ever sees you crying about that.

Slightly different context. Nice try, but failed again.
 
Its a requirement to signing a legal contract.

Pssst animals cant sign either. And being 1 man and one woman is also a requirement in most states.
 
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.

One more time there is no right to state marriage. Its a privilege

So we shouldnt be prejudiced? If so we have mayhem and anarchy
 
Except in gay marriage gays aren't marrying young boys. Try to fail a less less epically next time.



Because that would require some government program to ensure they don't have kids naturally. I'm pretty sure no one wants that level of intrusion, even the whacked out Social Conservatives.



True, but incest concentrates genetic defects far more then regular mitosis creates them.





So your solution is to bar the next generation from marrying their relatives? I'm just going to roll my eyes at you.

Only because its against the law. NAMBLA is all for it

Baloney. Sodomy laws are no longer needed as our gene pools are now so diluted theres very little chance of abnormalities.

In the old days yes.
 
I think what you were trying to say is that pedophiles are pedophiles not homosexuals. That being said though if you look online there is a good deal of porn that caters to men who like boys. And one could dig up plenty of pedophile men that assaulted boys. Which the anti-gay league has been exploiting the reality of these type of pedophiles for years as why they oppose homosexuality. But they leave out the fact that an equal amount of pedophiles assault girls as well. It is a very dishonest tactic because pedophiles are not after sex they are attacking their victims for other reasons. Many cases of pedophile attacks on children did not even involve any sexual abuse at all.


Pedophiles come in many colors, some like boys some like girls and some like both.
 
Pedophiles come in many colors, some like boys some like girls and some like both.

Which has nothing to do with their sexuality, what gender of adult a pedophile would be in an adult relationship with. Which is why it is stupid to try to link homosexuality and pedophilia because one has nothing to do with the other.
 
Which has nothing to do with their sexuality, what gender of adult a pedophile would be in an adult relationship with. Which is why it is stupid to try to link homosexuality and pedophilia because one has nothing to do with the other.

People often see the two as interconnected. It appears that there are a lot of pedophiles that like young boys, more than would be random.

The ban on homosexual research needs to be lifted. It's been in place since 1973 when the homosexual lobby pressured the American Psychological Association to remove Homosexuality from the "Mental Illness" category in their diagnostic manual. Since that time, all research of homosexuality has been pro-homosexual, to the extent that it has entered the junk science category. Valid researchers know that researching the homosexual pathology would be akin to comparing black IQs to others, they would be fired and discredited immediately.

To even mention such things, one risks being attacked, labeled and called names. This reaction in itself, to a call for valid research, is very strange and weird.
 
fundamentally, I believe people are against incest marriage because they think it's icky. which is not a valid reason to deny rights. as far as Hugh Hefner marrying a 30 y/o being way more icky than two lesbian...I guess that is a matter of personal preference.

some people think old dudes marrying young women is icky, some people think two dudes bumping uglies is icky, some people think incest is icky.

just because you think something is icky, doesn't make it a valid reason to deny them rights.

The majority of people I know of are against incest marriage because we have a biological imperative to not be in intimate relationships with people we are raised with. But we are also able to articulate specific state interests being met in not allowing incest marriages, particularly between those who are raised together. It is called "undue influence". As of right now, we have found that the vast majority of cases of incest involve the older relative coaxing if not completely initiating the relationship into being starting at a young age. This is not a healthy relationship.

Now, this is where we should definitely give some exceptions to the rule though. If two people meet after they reach at earliest adolescence (for those around the same age) and want to be in a relationship, it should not be wrong for us to consider making an exception for such situations. Genetic counseling should still be given though to those couples who may be allowed. And it would be placed on them to show that they weren't raised together.
 
People often see the two as interconnected. It appears that there are a lot of pedophiles that like young boys, more than would be random.

The ban on homosexual research needs to be lifted. It's been in place since 1973 when the homosexual lobby pressured the American Psychological Association to remove Homosexuality from the "Mental Illness" category in their diagnostic manual. Since that time, all research of homosexuality had been pro-homosexual, to the extent that it has entered the BS category. Valid researchers know that researching the homosexual pathology would be akin to comparing black IQs to others, they would be fired and discredited immediately.

And what sex/gender the child is still that a pedophile molested still has nothing to do with what the adult's sexuality is. We have plenty of research that shows this already. The vast majority of pedophiles actually have no adult sexuality or they are asexual, as far as adult relationships are concerned. Those that can be shown to have or have had healthy adult relationships have the same distribution of heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual found in society. The gender of the child has no place in considering what the sexuality of the person is.
 
The majority of people I know of are against incest marriage because we have a biological imperative to not be in intimate relationships with people we are raised with. But we are also able to articulate specific state interests being met in not allowing incest marriages, particularly between those who are raised together. It is called "undue influence". As of right now, we have found that the vast majority of cases of incest involve the older relative coaxing if not completely initiating the relationship into being starting at a young age. This is not a healthy relationship.

Now, this is where we should definitely give some exceptions to the rule though. If two people meet after they reach at earliest adolescence (for those around the same age) and want to be in a relationship, it should not be wrong for us to consider making an exception for such situations. Genetic counseling should still be given though to those couples who may be allowed. And it would be placed on them to show that they weren't raised together.

finally a voice of reason.

Genetic sexual attraction (GSA) is a term that describes the phenomenon of sexual attraction between close relatives, such as siblings or half-siblings, a parent and offspring, or first and second cousins, who first meet as adults.[1]

Contributing factorsSeveral factors may contribute to GSA. People commonly rank faces similar to their own as more attractive, trustworthy, etc. than average. [4] Heredity produces substantial physical similarity between close relatives. However, Bereczkei (2004) attributes this in part to childhood imprinting on the opposite-sex parent. Shared interests and personality traits are commonly considered desirable in a mate. The heritability of these qualities is a matter of great debate; to whatever extent they are heritable, they will tend to cluster in close relatives. In cases of parent-child attraction, the parent may recognize traits of their own in the child and ultimately end up mating with them. Such reunions typically produce complex emotions in all involved.[5]

[edit] InstancesA brother and sister couple in Germany, the Stübings, fought their country's anti-incest laws. They grew up separately, met as adults, and have had four children. Their appeal was rejected in 2008, upholding Germany's anti-incest laws.[6][7]

Kathryn Harrison published a memoir in the 1990s regarding her four-year incestuous relationship with her biological father, whom she had not seen for almost 20 years prior to beginning the relationship, titled The Kiss.[8]

A couple in South Africa who had been together for five years and are expecting a child discovered that they are brother and sister just before their wedding. They were raised up separately and met as adults in college.[9]

Garry Ryan at 18 left his pregnant girlfriend and he moved to America. The daughter, Penny Lawrence, grew up and later set out to find her missing father. When they met, they "both felt an immediate sexual attraction". They then lived together as a couple and as of April 2012 were expecting their first child together. [10]

In August 2012, a 32-year-old father and his 18-year-old daughter were convicted of incest after they admitted to having an incestuous relationship which began in August 2010 when the girl was 16. The incest continued until May 2012 and resulted in the couple having a daughter, who was born in 2011. The teen, who was conceived in an incestuous relationship between the male offender and his 30-year-old foster mother, told the court she was in love with her father and that they had been living as 'husband and wife' after meeting each other in 2010.[11]
 
Pssst animals cant sign either. And being 1 man and one woman is also a requirement in most states.

Yeah I know animals cant sign contracts. Thats why a human cant marry an animal.

You are right that in most states having one man and one woman is a requirement. Doesnt mean that the requirement is constitutional or does it mean that it isnt discrimination. There are good reasons to have both parties consent to entering a contract but there are no good reasons for having only opposite sex couples be able to enter that contract.
 
People often see the two as interconnected. It appears that there are a lot of pedophiles that like young boys, more than would be random.

The ban on homosexual research needs to be lifted. It's been in place since 1973 when the homosexual lobby pressured the American Psychological Association to remove Homosexuality from the "Mental Illness" category in their diagnostic manual. Since that time, all research of homosexuality has been pro-homosexual, to the extent that it has entered the junk science category. Valid researchers know that researching the homosexual pathology would be akin to comparing black IQs to others, they would be fired and discredited immediately.

To even mention such things, one risks being attacked, labeled and called names. This reaction in itself, to a call for valid research, is very strange and weird.

There is no ban on researching homosexuality. And your wrong when you say the homosexual lobby pressured the APA to remove homosexuality from the mental illness catagory. They pressured to APA to look at a study that suggested homosexuality is not a mental illness and after 8 years they finally did. So it was removed because of new studies not because some pro-homosexual agenda. Its ridiculous to think that a small minority of people managed to force the APA to do anything especially when at the time the vast majority of people didnt accept homosexuality. So please enough with that stupid conspiracy theory.
 
One more time there is no right to state marriage. Its a privilege

So we shouldnt be prejudiced? If so we have mayhem and anarchy

Correct on both counts. Marriage, and all the benefits provided by the Federal government, isn't a right. You are free to hate anyone you like.

However, what the State and the Feds can't do is violate the Constitution. In this case, the 14th Amendment equal protection clause. There are 1,138 benefits granted to straight married couples. For the Feds or the State to grant special status for whites, blacks, straights, gays or any other subgroup and deny other Americans the same status is a violation of the Constitution's 14th Amendment. The choice is clear; either grant those benefits to everyone or no one. Which do you prefer?
 
Correct on both counts. Marriage, and all the benefits provided by the Federal government, isn't a right. You are free to hate anyone you like.

However, what the State and the Feds can't do is violate the Constitution. In this case, the 14th Amendment equal protection clause. There are 1,138 benefits granted to straight married couples. For the Feds or the State to grant special status for whites, blacks, straights, gays or any other subgroup and deny other Americans the same status is a violation of the Constitution's 14th Amendment. The choice is clear; either grant those benefits to everyone or no one. Which do you prefer?

So Affirmative Action violates the 14th Amendment in your reasoning? You may want to rethink the whole "equal protection" argument IMHO (perhaps because it may be a 9th Amendment issue or even a substantive due process issues but I do not recall a case where equal protection was used in the way you seem to think it is)
 
Back
Top Bottom