• 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!

Should same-sex marriage be allowed?

Should it be allowed?

  • I'm a right leaning yes

    Votes: 3 13.0%
  • I'm a right leaning no

    Votes: 4 17.4%
  • I'm a left leaning yes

    Votes: 14 60.9%
  • I'm a left leaning no

    Votes: 2 8.7%

  • Total voters
    23
It's about time this subject came up.
 
It's a simple matter of equal protection. Men are allowed to marry women, so women should be allowed to marry women. Women are allowed to marry men, so men should be allowed to marry men.

On a moral level, homosexuals have the same duty to their ancestors to marry and raise children as heterosexuals.
 
A little late, don't ya think?
 
Only if they give me free bacon strips.
 
A little late, don't ya think?

Have no doubt, somewhere at the GNC headquarters, there are people ignoring their hatred of science and building a time machine. Flux capacitor and all of that jazz.
 
Sorry, in the United States of America, this issue has been settled. Don't delude yourself into thinking it will change.

But go ahead, have your straw vote if it makes you feel any better. I'll vote YES, but not based on any left or right leaning, just solely on my Libertarian viewpoint. :)
 
It's a simple matter of equal protection. Men are allowed to marry women, so women should be allowed to marry women. Women are allowed to marry men, so men should be allowed to marry men.

On a moral level, homosexuals have the same duty to their ancestors to marry and raise children as heterosexuals.

Men have a moral obligation to reproduce...or at least adopt?
 
I can't vote in the poll......

I don't have a definite lean.
 
Yes. Men and women have an obligation to their ancestors to preserve their family lines.

Huh. Why?

If every woman on the planet decided that the would never reproduce again - I'm fine with that. That's their choice. And men don't have that direct choice. It's up to "willing" women, actually.

Our ancestors weren't always right. And neither are we.

But to claim that every person has a moral obligation to reproduce "is pretty far out".

What if you, as a man, reproduce and don't want to?
 
I cannot vote either because I have no particular lean. With that said...SSM should have been allowed long ago so they could have the same perks heteros have. Long over due. However, with that said, I don't think the SCOTUS should have the right to vote it in to law. It should be each states decision, voted on by people of that state.
 
Huh. Why?

Because we are reborn within our family lines. Our ancestors made room for us, so we must make room for them.

If you're not religious, think about your grandparents and everything they did for your parents and for you so that you could exist in this world-- they would want you to have kids of your own, wouldn't they?

If every woman on the planet decided that the would never reproduce again - I'm fine with that. That's their choice. And men don't have that direct choice. It's up to "willing" women, actually.

That would lead to the extinction of the species.

What if you, as a man, reproduce and don't want to?

Then you either uphold your obligation to your ancestors or you don't. Reproduction should be a choice and parenthood should never be forced on unwilling persons by the State. But there's a matter of right and wrong, and the right thing to do, eventually, is to settle down and raise a family if you are able.
 
Because we are reborn within our family lines. Our ancestors made room for us, so we must make room for them.

If you're not religious, think about your grandparents and everything they did for your parents and for you so that you could exist in this world-- they would want you to have kids of your own, wouldn't they?

That would lead to the extinction of the species.

Then you either uphold your obligation to your ancestors or you don't. Reproduction should be a choice and parenthood should never be forced on unwilling persons by the State. But there's a matter of right and wrong, and the right thing to do, eventually, is to settle down and raise a family if you are able.

I can see we have way different heritages and ancestors.

No, I'm not religious.

Yes, all women refusing to reproduce would lead to extinction. But again, if they all declared it to be so...then I'm fine with that decision.

I don't think any person has a moral or legal obligation to reproduce. That every person does so for their own sake...not their ancestor's.

So I think we're pretty far away from holding any alike thoughts regarding reproduction. Well, and probably religion and a number of other things, but I still like some things you post.
 
Only one thing smells like bacon, and that's bacon.

And I'm not like that damn dog that can be tricked. I know me some bacon.
 
Now that we've legalized gay marriage, the obvious next step is to ban straight marriage and crush heterosexuality into oblivion.

I assume most Republicans' nightmares are something like that, no?
 
Yes. Men and women have an obligation to their ancestors to preserve their family lines.

As is my new "standard" response to pro-life arguments.

Meh. Overpopulation is a serious problem.
 
I cannot vote either because I have no particular lean. With that said...SSM should have been allowed long ago so they could have the same perks heteros have. Long over due. However, with that said, I don't think the SCOTUS should have the right to vote it in to law. It should be each states decision, voted on by people of that state.

So then you disagree with our founders in creating a Republic??

Do you think that rights and liberties of the individual should be subject to the whims of the majority? Rather than the rights and liberties of the individual protected from encroachment by the majority?

Do you believe that in some imaginary majority white racist state, the rights of black people to marry should be subject to vote? Do you believe that the rights of asians to obtain a driver's license should be subject to vote? Do you believe that the rights of women to vote should be subject to a majority vote???

Do you believe that these rights should be subject to removal or not granted based upon that majority vote?
 
Sorry, no we are not usually reborn within family lines!
 
It's a simple matter of equal protection. Men are allowed to marry women, so women should be allowed to marry women. Women are allowed to marry men, so men should be allowed to marry men.

On a moral level, homosexuals have the same duty to their ancestors to marry and raise children as heterosexuals.

That is the simplistic view, certainly.
 
Back
Top Bottom