• 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 .
Suuuuuuure you aren't.
Don't get mad at me just because both you and I keep proving my point.
Don't get mad at me just because liberalism makes absolute zero sense.

You say I ignore the Laws of this Land?
Prove it.
You say your daughter is a lesbian and she wants to marry her girlfriend. You support her decision. The legal definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. In essence, it's the law of the land. Your daughter is ignoring the law of the land. You support your faughter, which means that if you were gay, being the politically charged person that you are, you would also want to marry, therefore, you would also be ignoring the law of the land.

What Laws have I broken?
That's a question for your parole officer, not me.

Prove your God even exists to even provide laws.
I don't have the proof you're looking for, but should you ever decide to repent and find the everlasting God, I'll be more than happy to assist you in your endeavors.

I obey MY Deity's Laws.
Is your diety a homosexual? Just wondering....

How about prove I don't do that either,hmmmm?
Oh, I'm sure you follow YOUR diety's laws to the letter. I have no doubt of that. ;)

I don't give crap about YOUR deity or his overly long boring book.
YOUR Deity has no power over me.
Yeah, I don't give a crap about secular values, either. That's why I'm encouraging the rest of the 50 states to stay true to the legal definition of marriage.

Like I've said before,Christianity and Christians do not own God,they do not own Marriage,the have no entitlement to rule others simply because they are Christians,they don't have the right to ram their beliefs down everone eles throats.they don't own Love,and they don't own Peace.
And I'm saying, right now, that you don't know the first thing about God. But I'm willing to bet that you're into all things carnal & sensual. ;)
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I don't give a crap about secular values, either. That's why I'm encouraging the rest of the 50 states to stay true to the legal definition of marriage.
Why should government be allowed to define marriage at all? Marriage should be defined by individuals in society, not by some arbitrary law of the state.
 
Don't get mad at me just because liberalism makes absolute zero sense.

It's your religious fanaticism that makes zero sense.
Let's see...I'm a registered Republican,I am a firm supporter of the 2nd Amendment,I believe in a strong American Military,I'm a supporter of smaller government,I'm pro business,I'm for lower taxes,I believe in fiscal responsibility,I am pro life,I beleive in states rights,and I give lots of time and money to charity,and I believe in hard work and self reliance.
My stance on gay marriage is more libertarian than liberal.
Once again you failed.

You say your daughter is a lesbian and she wants to marry her girlfriend. You support her decision. The legal definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. In essence, it's the law of the land. Your daughter is ignoring the law of the land. You support your faughter, which means that if you were gay, being the politically charged person that you are, you would also want to marry, therefore, you would also be ignoring the law of the land.

You are using the same arguements ( you just changed the word interracial to homosexual) racists used against interracial marriages and you say you aren't a racist?
Ha,it is to laugh.
And it's legal in the state I live in.
Hahahah. And again you fail.
That's a question for your parole officer, not me.
I don't have a parole officer.I never been to prison.
Oh I get it,you insinuating that just because I am black I must be a criminal.
That's very racist of you.
I don't have the proof you're looking for, but should you ever decide to repent and find the everlasting God, I'll be more than happy to assist you in your endeavors.
You are such a egomaniac.
No thanks.The way you are coming across on this thread you'd help me find God with a bullet to my head,you sick sociopath.
You have nothing I need or want in life that I can't get myself.
You are the one with the raging vanity,maybe you should repent yourself and ask your deity for forgiveness.

Is your diety a homosexual? Just wondering....
Why do you ask?Do you have latent homosexual tendencies yourself?
Is your deity looking to hook up with another?
You're the one whose God has a penis.
My Deity is a Force (look up Taoism) not a Being.


Oh, I'm sure you follow YOUR diety's laws to the letter. I have no doubt of that. ;)
And that's why I have a wonderful wife,three wonderful daughters,wonderful grandchildrem,ownership of a growing company,a big house,a nice car,good health,and a big fat bank account.
Yeah, I don't give a crap about secular values, either. That's why I'm encouraging the rest of the 50 states to stay true to the legal definition of marriage.
And little by little,more and more people will do the right thing and expand that definition.Future generations will look at you and say,"what a hate filled bigot".You will be seen as the bad guy,not me.
And I'm saying, right now, that you don't know the first thing about God. But I'm willing to bet that you're into all things carnal & sensual. ;)
Ladies and gentleman,we know have gotten to the real PETER GRIMM. Your Lord,Master,Saviour.Bow down to him and let him do the thinking for you.He will tell you what you need to know about GOD.

Why are you prying into my sex life,you sick pervert.I have no interest in you.
I'm a married man.
And I a saying ,right now that you don't know the first thing about God or anything carnal or sexual.
 
Last edited:
its so said that in 2012, soon to be 2013, theres people that still want to actually support discrimination and fight against equal rights. As an american how hypocritical can one be.
 
And I a saying ,right now that you don't know the first thing about God
I know a few things about God, and one of them is that He has given us commandments. It is our choice to accept them or reject them, but in the end, we will be judged according to our choices. That's really all I should be saying. At this point I'm going to do us both a favor, and terminate this aimless banter before one of us gets tagged.
 
Would appreciate some honest input.


So - again, for the third time I'll ask:

What are your thoughts on how this thread has evolved?

Disappointed? Relieved? Shocked?

Did you find strength in your stance, or can you potentially see where perhaps you need to re-evaluate your position?
 
I know a few things about God, and one of them is that He has given us commandments. It is our choice to accept them or reject them, but in the end, we will be judged according to our choices. That's really all I should be saying. At this point I'm going to do us both a favor, and terminate this aimless banter before one of us gets tagged.
And those against interracial marriage argued that God and the Bible condemned the marriage of blacks and whites. History repeats itself I guess.
 
I know a few things about God, and one of them is that He has given us commandments. It is our choice to accept them or reject them, but in the end, we will be judged according to our choices. That's really all I should be saying. At this point I'm going to do us both a favor, and terminate this aimless banter before one of us gets tagged.

It's funny you should mention Commandments.

In your previous post (#302) you accuse me of "liberalism" without providing a shed of evidence that I even was a liberal.
You then accuse me of of having a parole officer,thus implying that I am a criminal and have done time in prison without providing a shed of evidence.
You the accuse me of ignoring our Nations laws (thus implying that I am actively committing crimes) without a shred of evidence.

Congratulation,in just one post you managed to violate Your own God's 9th Commandment (Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness) a total of three times.

But I don't blame you with wanting to terminate this banter.You dug a hole for yourself so deep in this thread,you almost struck oil.
 
its so said that in 2012, soon to be 2013, theres people that still want to actually support discrimination and fight against equal rights. As an american how hypocritical can one be.

tell that to the people in this thread who support equal rights for a gay couple but not for an incestuous couple or polygamist group. ;)

( I await the obligatory squeals of " but...but....but...but....that's different" )

equal rights have to apply equally to everyone or they are not really equal
 
tell that to the people in this thread who support equal rights for a gay couple but not for an incestuous couple or polygamist group. ;)

( I await the obligatory squeals of " but...but....but...but....that's different" )

equal rights have to apply equally to everyone or they are not really equal

Incest does not equate with gay. Don't be a fool.

As for polygamy..... I don't care about that either. I see know reason why multiple consenting adults can't marry each other if that's what they chose to do. It's none of my business.

If businesses can be organized around a group of people, why can't marriages?

if people are stupid enough to want to get into that kind of situation, I say fine. Let them.

It doesn't hurt or effect me in the least.
 
Incest does not equate with gay. Don't be a fool.

knee jerk piss yourself much? who said that gay = incest? were talking equal rights. and equal rights should be equal for everyone...gay, incest, straight, polygamist...every group of consenting adults.

As for polygamy..... I don't care about that either. I see know reason why multiple consenting adults can't marry each other if that's what they chose to do. It's none of my business.

If businesses can be organized around a group of people, why can't marriages?

if people are stupid enough to want to get into that kind of situation, I say fine. Let them.

It doesn't hurt or effect me in the least.

on that we agree
 
There is an EXTREMELY valid scientific and sociological reason for not supporting incest.

Stop being a knee-jerk idiot and reaching for the most obnoxious scenarios to try to support your pathetic position on equality.

At what point will you also throw bestiality into the discussion? You might as well go whole-hog. No sense holding back.
Obviously it's only a matter of time.....
 
There is an EXTREMELY valid scientific and sociological reason for not supporting incest.

Stop being a knee-jerk idiot and reaching for the most obnoxious scenarios to try to support your pathetic position on equality.

At what point will you also throw bestiality into the discussion? You might as well go whole-hog. No sense holding back.
Obviously it's only a matter of time.....

animals can't give consent. so your position on equality hinges on your own personal feelings about the group of people involved...got it and thanks for clearing up your hypocrisy.


you people always want to squeal about the reproductive issue on incest, but then piss yourselves and cry that it is not an issue for gays. incest couples could have kids the same way gay couples do and that would eliminate your "extremely" valid scientific EXCUSE for denying them the same equal right you so loudly bleat for gays.

hypocrisy....what a concept
 
1.)tell that to the people in this thread who support equal rights for a gay couple but not for an incestuous couple or polygamist group. ;)

( I await the obligatory squeals of " but...but....but...but....that's different" )

equal rights have to apply equally to everyone or they are not really equal

again everytime you post this you prove you have no clue what equal rights are LMAO, you have been told this by many posters incuding myself and it has been proved over and over. You being uneducated about equal rights and you ignoring facts doesnt change anything.
 
Last edited:
animals can't give consent. so your position on equality hinges on your own personal feelings about the group of people involved...got it and thanks for clearing up your hypocrisy.


you people always want to squeal about the reproductive issue on incest, but then piss yourselves and cry that it is not an issue for gays. incest couples could have kids the same way gay couples do and that would eliminate your "extremely" valid scientific EXCUSE for denying them the same equal right you so loudly bleat for gays.

hypocrisy....what a concept

You have proven your ignorance in magnificent form. Thank you for that.

Now before you go on....perhaps you might want to go here and read around a bit.
 
animals can't give consent. so your position on equality hinges on your own personal feelings about the group of people involved...got it and thanks for clearing up your hypocrisy.


you people always want to squeal about the reproductive issue on incest, but then piss yourselves and cry that it is not an issue for gays. incest couples could have kids the same way gay couples do and that would eliminate your "extremely" valid scientific EXCUSE for denying them the same equal right you so loudly bleat for gays.

hypocrisy....what a concept
I agree with Oscar. The same rationale that extends marriage to same sex couples implies that marriage should be extended to relatives and polygamous groups. This is simple logic, and dragonfly is a hypocrite.

Bottom line is that government has no business gran special rights to married people but if it does it must do so equally, to straight, gay, incestuous and polygamous groups. This is about equal protection under the law.
 
There is an EXTREMELY valid scientific and sociological reason for not supporting incest.

Stop being a knee-jerk idiot and reaching for the most obnoxious scenarios to try to support your pathetic position on equality.

At what point will you also throw bestiality into the discussion? You might as well go whole-hog. No sense holding back.
Obviously it's only a matter of time.....

What happens between 2 or more consenting adults is none of your business. Animals lack the mental capacity to give consent and is a ridiculous comparison to card carrying citizens.
 
I agree with Oscar. The same rationale that extends marriage to same sex couples implies that marriage should be extended to relatives and polygamous groups. This is simple logic, and dragonfly is a hypocrite.

Bottom line is that government has no business gran special rights to married people but if it does it must do so equally, to straight, gay, incestuous and polygamous groups. This is about equal protection under the law.

finally, a voice of reason. this has been my point all along. If you are going to argue for equal rights then that right has to apply to everyone. too bad many gay supporters don't want to admit their hypocrisy on this issue.
 
I agree with Oscar. The same rationale that extends marriage to same sex couples implies that marriage should be extended to relatives and polygamous groups. This is simple logic, and dragonfly is a hypocrite.

Bottom line is that government has no business gran special rights to married people but if it does it must do so equally, to straight, gay, incestuous and polygamous groups. This is about equal protection under the law.

These efforts overlook one key difference between gay marriage and polygamous marriage. One permits equality between two married spouses; the other does not. And that in turn means that allowing polygamy would violate not only the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, but also the U.S. obligation under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to “ensure equality of rights and responsibilities of spouses as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.” So important is this right that both the UN Human Rights Committee and the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) have condemned polygamy in no uncertain terms. It should be “definitely abolished,” the Human Rights Committee ruled, because it violates women’s dignity rights and is an “inadmissible discrimination” against them. Similarly, CEDAW notes that it “contravenes a woman’s right to equality with men” and has “such serious emotional and financial consequences for her and her dependents” that it should be prohibited.

Moreover, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled against federal and state laws that give a wife fewer rights than a husband merely because of her sex, just as does a law permitting a husband to practice polygamy. Whether the law is so explicit that it makes the husband “head and master” of the home with the sole right to control property (Kirchberg v. Feenstra, 450 U.S. 455 (1981)) or denies a wife benefits awarded automatically to a husband, such as welfare benefits if the wife is unemployed (Califano v. Westcott, 443 U.S. 76 (1979)), housing and medical benefits for the wife’s spouse (Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973)), child-care benefits for a surviving spouse (Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, 420 U.S. 636 (1975)), or self-care benefits for a surviving spouse (Califano v. Goldfarb, 430 U.S. 199 (1977), and Wengler v. Druggists Mutual Insurance Company, 446 U.S. 142 (1980)), the Court has found violations of the Equal Protection Clause. Even when the rule discriminated against husbands, as in a state law requiring only husbands to pay alimony (Orr v. Orr, 440 U.S. 268 (1979)), the Court has required equality for husband and wife.

Should Polygamy Be Permitted in the United States? | Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities
 
Once more into the breach......

marriage is a status upon which some benefits accrue. When it comes to denying gays certain things, it is a discrimination claim. Denying them a privilege like marriage is not an equal protection issue--it is an enumerated powers issue as far as the federal government is concerned. As a rights issue you must turn to the 9th Amendment un-enumerated rights language to get you into the 14th Amendment which gives the feds the right to enforce its position onto the states. What does the 9th Amendment say since nobody here seems to have read it recently: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
 
you have proven you are a hypocrite.

And you have proven yourself a buffoon.

There is NOTHING hypocritical about be pro-SSM but not granting marriage rights to a related-by-blood siblings.

Only in your tiny mind is that hypocrisy.
 
These efforts overlook one key difference between gay marriage and polygamous marriage. One permits equality between two married spouses; the other does not. And that in turn means that allowing polygamy would violate not only the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, but also the U.S. obligation under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to “ensure equality of rights and responsibilities of spouses as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.” So important is this right that both the UN Human Rights Committee and the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) have condemned polygamy in no uncertain terms. It should be “definitely abolished,” the Human Rights Committee ruled, because it violates women’s dignity rights and is an “inadmissible discrimination” against them. Similarly, CEDAW notes that it “contravenes a woman’s right to equality with men” and has “such serious emotional and financial consequences for her and her dependents” that it should be prohibited.

Moreover, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled against federal and state laws that give a wife fewer rights than a husband merely because of her sex, just as does a law permitting a husband to practice polygamy. Whether the law is so explicit that it makes the husband “head and master” of the home with the sole right to control property (Kirchberg v. Feenstra, 450 U.S. 455 (1981)) or denies a wife benefits awarded automatically to a husband, such as welfare benefits if the wife is unemployed (Califano v. Westcott, 443 U.S. 76 (1979)), housing and medical benefits for the wife’s spouse (Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973)), child-care benefits for a surviving spouse (Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, 420 U.S. 636 (1975)), or self-care benefits for a surviving spouse (Califano v. Goldfarb, 430 U.S. 199 (1977), and Wengler v. Druggists Mutual Insurance Company, 446 U.S. 142 (1980)), the Court has found violations of the Equal Protection Clause. Even when the rule discriminated against husbands, as in a state law requiring only husbands to pay alimony (Orr v. Orr, 440 U.S. 268 (1979)), the Court has required equality for husband and wife.

Should Polygamy Be Permitted in the United States? | Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities

Your entire rant is based upon the assumption (not in evidence) that polygamy is to be defined as a one male with multiple female partners relationship. If we are to accept SSM then clearly gender is not allowed to be determining factor in marriage contracts, thus not an issue in your "polygamy is bad" argument. Note that business partnership contracts do not limit the number of, gender of or family relationship among the partners involved; these contracts handle joint property rights, survivorship rights of a partner's interest/assets, voluntary separation/disolution and the resulting distribution of assets and ownership rights of common property. The only major difference in a business a partnership and a marriage contract is that custody of minor dependents is not covered.
 
Back
Top Bottom