• 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 .
Dooble said:
Not before I suggest that you read the post I was responding to. His logic was flawed. There is zero proof that same-sex couples can love each other the EXACT same way heterosexual couples love each other. There's simply no way this is possible, as one major reason is that same-sex couples cannot create life together -- that is a bond they will never understand, and is a primary reason for marriage, in the first place.
Click to expand...

You are full of such ignorance and blindness. Any more discussion with you is hopeless.

Your judgement of others is in fact so anti-christian that I'm sure you can't even see the hypocrisy for the trees.
 
Dragonfly said:
You are full of such ignorance and blindness. Any more discussion with you is hopeless.

Your judgement of others is in fact so anti-christian that I'm sure you can't even see the hypocrisy for the trees.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry you feel that way, but you're wrong. Being anti-Christian means you are miserable and you despise God's commandments. Remember the saying "Misery loves company"? Well, you love that sort of company so much, that you're willing to guilt others and bring them down to your level to get it. Much like you were trying to do in this last post.
 
Dooble said:
Not before I suggest that you read the post I was responding to. His logic was flawed. There is zero proof that same-sex couples can love each other the EXACT same way heterosexual couples love each other. There's simply no way this is possible, as one major reason is that same-sex couples cannot create life together -- that is a bond they will never understand, and is a primary reason for marriage, in the first place.
Click to expand...

My wife lost her ovaries to cancer a decade before I married her.We can't create life together.Are you saying that somehow,our marriage is inferior to others?
That we shouldn't have gotten married?
That somehow the love and bond we feel for each other isn't legitimate?
 
Dooble said:
I'm sorry you feel that way, but you're wrong. Being anti-Christian means you are miserable and you despise God's commandments. Remember the saying "Misery loves company"? Well, you love that sort of company so much, that you're willing to guilt others and bring them down to your level to get it. Much like you were trying to do in this last post.
Click to expand...

Nice attempt at a guilt trip there
 
America isn't run by the Church. As an amoral atheist, I don't really care. If there's a Hell as the old Bible describes, I guess we'll find out.
 
Verthaine said:
My wife lost her ovaries to cancer a decade before I married her.We can't create life together.Are you saying that somehow,our marriage is inferior to others?
That we shouldn't have gotten married?
That somehow the love and bond we feel for each other isn't legitimate?
Click to expand...
Absolutely not. I'm guessing the intent for both of you was still there, even though she was unable to have children. It's also important to remember that you came together as husband and wife. Good for you.
 
anything that will end the protest parades filled with guys in assless pants, felating each other in the streets is a good thing ;)
 
OscarB63 said:
anything that will end the protest parades filled with guys in assless pants, felating each other in the streets is a good thing ;)
Click to expand...

While I do support SSM, those people you mentioned are classless fools.
 
Rainman05 said:
I am against any intrusion of the government to tell religions that they should allow the homosexuals to marry in a Church and I don't think that they should be allowed to marry in a Church/synangogue if the religion (any religion, from the abrahamic religions to the asian ones) doesn't allow it. If the gays want to marry in a church and have a ceremony, they should make the Holy Church of Homosexuals, copy whatever religion they want to have, scrap the no-marriage-for-gays part and replace with something favorable and then they can marry in a Church, have a ceremony and all that good stuff. If the numbers are correct, and 10% of the world is homosexual, then the Holy Church of Homosexuals will have 700bil people as their constituents and it will be the 4th largest religion on the planet after Islam, Christianity and Hinduism.
Click to expand...

Fortunately, nobody has ever suggested legally requiring a church to perform same-sex marriages in their facilities if they don't want to. Churches aren't required to perform your marriage for you either, you know. They can say "no, go somewhere else. We don't like your hair."

Because it's private property and you don't have a right to use it for your ceremony.
 
Dooble said:
Absolutely not. I'm guessing the intent for both of you was still there, even though she was unable to have children. It's also important to remember that you came together as husband and wife. Good for you.
Click to expand...

Before they even met she was rendered unable to have children. For them, unfortunately, intent was just as ineffective as intent to have children for a same-sex couple, wouldn't you say?

I'm glad you agree, then. Homosexual marriages aren't inferior just for their inability to have children.

Since when does my marriage have to prove anything to you, anyway?
 
Deuce said:
Fortunately, nobody has ever suggested legally requiring a church to perform same-sex marriages in their facilities if they don't want to. Churches aren't required to perform your marriage for you either, you know. They can say "no, go somewhere else. We don't like your hair."

Because it's private property and you don't have a right to use it for your ceremony.
Click to expand...

I've said this so many times, and it falls on deaf ears.

SSM is not a mandate for churches or the religious. It's for the state and country,

SSM does not in any way change anything done by churches.

So any religious angle one takes against SSM is useless.
 
Dragonfly said:
I've said this so many times, and it falls on deaf ears.

SSM is not a mandate for churches or the religious. It's for the state and country,

SSM does not in any way change anything done by churches.

So any religious angle one takes against SSM is useless.
Click to expand...

until some gay or lesbian couple sues a church for refusing to perform their ceremony.
 
Dragonfly said:
I've said this so many times, and it falls on deaf ears.

SSM is not a mandate for churches or the religious. It's for the state and country,

SSM does not in any way change anything done by churches.

So any religious angle one takes against SSM is useless.
Click to expand...

until some gay or lesbian couple sues a church for refusing to perform their ceremony.
 
OscarB63 said:
until some gay or lesbian couple sues a church for refusing to perform their ceremony.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. I can't sue the Catholic Church for refusing to marry me. Nor can I sue a Synagogue. Nor can I sue a Mormon Church.

They have the RIGHT to refuse to marry anyone they chose for numerous reasons.
 
Dragonfly said:
Nonsense. I can't sue the Catholic Church for refusing to marry me. Nor can I sue a Synagogue. Nor can I sue a Mormon Church.

They have the RIGHT to refuse to marry anyone they chose for numerous reasons.
Click to expand...

you can sue just about anyone for any or no reason :shrug: not saying you have grounds to sue...but I could see it happening by someone wanting to make a statement
 
I support it simply because we have a horrible tendency in this nation to discriminate against some group of people. It is about civil liberties and anything involving that has my support.

Now granted I think government should be out entirely when it comes to marriage and only recognize civil unions in both heterosexual and homosexual couples. I think if the government did that then there might be less problems. Marriage originated in the church and through religion. Keep it there, and adopt civil unions for tax purposes.
 
OscarB63 said:
you can sue just about anyone for any or no reason :shrug: not saying you have grounds to sue...but I could see it happening by someone wanting to make a statement
Click to expand...


More correct would be the statement: You can attempt to sue just about anybody if you are willing to suffer the consequences
 
Last edited:
OscarB63 said:
until some gay or lesbian couple sues a church for refusing to perform their ceremony.
Click to expand...

A gay couple cannot sue a religious institution for refusing to marry them - HOWEVER, if the institution owns some property for which they have received tax exemptions and said property has been leased or rented to non-church groups for private functions not related to the church (temple, mosque or synagogue) and they refuse to rent or lease under the same terms to a group that would be holding a gay marriage ceremony - THEN the religious institution could be sued for discrimination against a specific group.
 
Somerville said:
More correctly would be the statement: You can attempt to sue just about anybody if you are willing to suffer the consequences
Click to expand...

you can file a suit for any or no reason, (so you are correct about "attempt to sue" ) and in the vast majority of cases the worst that will happen is that the court refuses to hear it.
 
Somerville said:
More correctly would be the statement: You can attempt to sue just about anybody if you are willing to suffer the consequences
Click to expand...
Sometimes I can't tell if people don't say things correctly because they don't want to take the time to say what they mean carefully, or because they simply aren't capable of thinking that deeply about what they are saying.
 
Somerville said:
A gay couple cannot sue a religious institution for refusing to marry them - HOWEVER, if the institution owns some property for which they have received tax exemptions and said property has been leased or rented to non-church groups for private functions not related to the church (temple, mosque or synagogue) and they refuse to rent or lease under the same terms to a group that would be holding a gay marriage ceremony - THEN the religious institution could be sued for discrimination against a specific group.
Click to expand...

which was the point I was making...just too lazy to spell it out in such detail.

ie, my church has allowed the girl scouts to use our facility for meetings. if we refused to allow a gay couple to use our facility for a wedding...we could be sued.
 
OscarB63 said:
which was the point I was making...just too lazy to spell it out in such detail.

ie, my church has allowed the girl scouts to use our facility for meetings. if we refused to allow a gay couple to use our facility for a wedding...we could be sued.
Click to expand...


So a religious group has to make a choice: Property owned by the group may not be rented, leased or provided to any non-related group or individual OR if they want the tax exemption and they want to gain income from the property, then they may not discriminate.

No religious group should be provided a tax exemption for property that is used to provide income for the group.
 
tessaesque said:
It isn't defining rights on the basis of sexual orientation, it's demanding that they not be limited on that basis.
Click to expand...

Which is why I can't support the SSM issue as an "equal rights" issue or that sexuality has any play at all when it comes to issuing rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom