• 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 .
Verthaine said:
Is there a law somewhere that forbids the changing of a dictionary definition?
So according to your own post,love between a man and a woman has absolutely nothing to do with it.

And may I point out that you are still using arguments that those who oppose that those who opposed interracial marriages have used before to argue against homosexual marriages.
Click to expand...

not to mention gay marriage is 100% legal in places, just not everywhere so referring to ONE definition that suits one's own personal views is beyond uneducated and stupid.
I can post a link that says same sex marriage is included, whats that mean :shrug:
 
Dooble said:
You actually have a point. It says marriage is between a man and a woman; not between a man and a man, or between a pedophile and a condom wearing teenager, or even between two lesbians and their sheep dog. It says between a man and a woman. So marriage between a man and a woman is not even the primary reason; it's the ONLY reason for marriage. Thank you for helping to clarify this argument, Neomalthusian.
Click to expand...

Just because it says "one man and one woman" does not demonstrate that it is the rationale for marrying. I know what it says and have already acknowledged what it says. Legal definitions sometimes change though, and if this one changed, I wouldn't see that as harmful to anyone.
 
Neomalthusian said:
Just because it says "one man and one woman" does not demonstrate that it is the rationale for marrying.
Click to expand...
Who said anything about rationale? I just told what actually IS. You've made a very significant contribution to this debate, Neo, so don't muss it up.
 
Dooble said:
Who said anything about rationale?
Click to expand...

You've repeatedly asserted that gender is the REASON for marrying. Rationale is a synonym for "reason."

rationale |ˌra sh əˈnal|
noun
a set of reasons or a logical basis for a course of action or a particular belief

Source: New Oxford American Dictionary
Click to expand...

Dooble said:
I just told what actually IS.
Click to expand...

You've told something that I asked you previously to support with legal terminology, and you've yet to do it. Specifically, I asked you to demonstrate that any legal definition of marriage suggests that gender is the reason people get married.
 
Neomalthusian said:
Just because it says "one man and one woman" does not demonstrate that it is the rationale for marrying. I know what it says and have already acknowledged what it says. Legal definitions sometimes change though, and if this one changed, I wouldn't see that as harmful to anyone.
Click to expand...

yeah...I just don't see what the big deal is. if two dudes or two girls want to get married...let em, as long as they are held to the same responsibilities as well as rights as everyone else who gets married. I don't see why so many people are getting bent out of shape over something that will not affect them in any way. gays are already forming couples and doing all the things couple do, not allowing them to marry isn't going to stop them from being gay.

it's like the retards in the town next to mine. they keep voting down liqour sales as if that is going to keep people from drinking in their podunk little town. never mind that in any direction you drive there is a liquor store just outside the city limits where residents can by all the booze they want.
 
Mathematician said:
Logic and statistics are commonly applied in all sciences, exact or inexact. The natural attraction to the opposite sex is seen in the numbers and explained logically as the instinct to procreate.

.
Click to expand...

Homosexuality occurs naturally in nature.
 
Dooble said:
Are you having trouble with the Now?
Click to expand...
Not at all.I live in the 21st Century.It is you who seems to be living in 6th Century.

Dooble said:
Let's not argue as if the SC has already caved in, shall we?
Click to expand...

You sound bitter.
I hope you aren't upset because you aren't allowed to force everyone to accept your religious beliefs.

Of course the SC is caving in.
No one has been able to mount an affective arguement against SSM that doesn't resort to Religious Doctrine,fearmongering,and outright disinformation.

Didn't Washington State Voters recently voted to allow gay marriages in their state?
 
Dooble said:
Who said anything about rationale? I just told what actually IS. You've made a very significant contribution to this debate, Neo, so don't muss it up.
Click to expand...
Ahh,the "because I said so" maneuver.
Classic.
You keep up with your vanity and you just may going to an Afterlife you may not want to be in.
 
winston53660 said:
Homosexuality occurs naturally in nature.
Click to expand...

so does cannibalism, incest, infanticide, etc, etc, etc. the 'it's natural' angle is the worst argument for homosexuality existant. not saying homosexuality is wrong or in any way equivalent to incest or cannibalism but the argument itself is flawed.

my dog naturally eats horse **** in nature but that doesn't make it a good idea ;)
 
Neomalthusian said:
You've repeatedly asserted that gender is the REASON for marrying. Rationale is a synonym for "reason."

You've told something that I asked you previously to support with legal terminology, and you've yet to do it. Specifically, I asked you to demonstrate that any legal definition of marriage suggests that gender is the reason people get married.
Click to expand...
I clarified my stance in the next to this last post. Marriage is between a man and a woman. The Bible states it, our legal definition covers it, and most important of all, the God of Abraham wills it.

Love, children, a family in general, are all crucial to marriage, and they all fall under the successful marriage relationship of a mother and father.
 
OscarB63 said:
so does cannibalism, incest, infanticide, etc, etc, etc. the 'it's natural' angle is the worst argument for homosexuality existant. not saying homosexuality is wrong or in any way equivalent to incest or cannibalism but the argument itself is flawed.

my dog naturally eats horse **** in nature but that doesn't make it a good idea ;)
Click to expand...

Yawn and just what harm does homosexualty cause?
 
OscarB63 said:
so does cannibalism, incest, infanticide, etc, etc, etc. the 'it's natural' angle is the worst argument for homosexuality existant. not saying homosexuality is wrong or in any way equivalent to incest or cannibalism but the argument itself is flawed.

my dog naturally eats horse **** in nature but that doesn't make it a good idea ;)
Click to expand...

uhm i dont think he was using it for a pro-argument at all, only pointing out that people falsely implying its unnatural can be deemed wrong/opinion and their argument(natural/unnatural) is meaningless, like you just displayed.
 
Dooble said:
I clarified my stance in the next to this last post. Marriage is between a man and a woman. 1.)The Bible states it, 2.)our legal definition covers it, 3.)and most important of all, the God of Abraham wills it.

4.)Love, children, a family in general, are all crucial to marriage, and they all fall under the successful marriage relationship of a mother and father.
Click to expand...

1.) bible is meaningless in the debate
2.) legal gay marriage is here in the US so i dont know whothis "our" you are referring to, OUR system already defines gay marriage as marriage in some casses
3.) also meaningless to america and law
4.) your opinion and nothing more
 
Dooble said:
No, because the legal definition says so.
Click to expand...

wrong, are you even from america? are you of age? it seems theres a lot of fact you dont know on this subject.
 
winston53660 said:
Yawn and just what harm does homosexualty cause?
Click to expand...

knee jerk much? where did i say it caused any harm? just saying the "it's natural" argument is flawed. some people actually have to capability to agree with a position and disagree with a poor argument supporting the position.
 
Objective-J said:
uhm i dont think he was using it for a pro-argument at all, only pointing out that people falsely implying its unnatural can be deemed wrong/opinion and their argument(natural/unnatural) is meaningless, like you just displayed.
Click to expand...

exactly, both sides of that argument are equally flawed.
 
OscarB63 said:
exactly, both sides of that argument are equally flawed.
Click to expand...

I agree natural/natural is meaningless to equal rights since its very subjective
 
Dooble said:
No, because the legal definition says so.
Click to expand...

And yet the legal definition is changing.
States have begun to actively vote on changing it.
I hope you don't have a problem with people participating in the democratic process.
 
winston53660 said:
Homosexuality occurs naturally in nature.
Click to expand...
Animals have physical and mental issues, just like we do. So what? A disease found in both animals and humans doesn't mean it's not a disease when a human has it.
 
Mathematician said:
Animals have physical and mental issues, just like we do. So what? A disease found in both animals and humans doesn't mean it's not a disease when a human has it.
Click to expand...

Other then the fact you have an opinion that differs from the APA, (again I ask,what qualifications do you have that allows you to make mental health diagnoses) do you have any proof that homosexuality is in fact a disease?Have you yourself done any clinical research on that subject?
Have you published your results?
Or are you just sprouting out your biases and let evidence to the contrary be damned?
 
Mathematician said:
Animals have physical and mental issues, just like we do. So what? A disease found in both animals and humans doesn't mean it's not a disease when a human has it.
Click to expand...

did you just compare homosexuality to a disease?
I hope i misunderstood nd your not equating the two.
 
Mathematician said:
Animals have physical and mental issues, just like we do. So what? A disease found in both animals and humans doesn't mean it's not a disease when a human has it.
Click to expand...

lots of "defects' occur naturally. doesn't mean that they are "normal". of course, just because something is not "normal' doesn't neccessarily mean it's a bad thing....only that it lies outside the "norm" for a given population.

speaking strictly on the basis of statistical norms...it is undeniable that homosexuality is not "normal' since it occurs in such a very small percentage of the total population....as does left-handedness


the whole normal/natural argument both for and against homosexuality is pointless and proves nothing
 
What is the primary reason behind your support for same-sex marriage?

From a legal standpoint being married imparts many benefits. Not extending those benefits to same sex couple, or polygamist families for that matter, is clearly a violation of the equal protection clause in my opinion. If we don't want want to extend marriage benefits to homosexual couples we should remove them heterosexual couples.

From a societal standpoint stable families mean stable societies. For that reason alone we should encourage same sex marriage as a matter of sound social policy.

On a personal level if someone finds love with a person who's the same gender as they I say good for them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom