• 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!

If you oppose same-sex marriage, you are...

If you oppose same-sex marriage, are you...

  • Total voters
    34
Blackdog said:
I pretty much see it the way P/N does.

This does not mean I don't want homosexuals and lesbians to have the same protections under the law, or hate someone who is gay in any way.

I have no problem with civil unions, but as I have said before I do not see it as a marriage.
Click to expand...

Precisely…

IMO homosexuals should be afforded every right that heterosexuals are afforded under a civil union. Marriage is a tradition between men and women. Homosexuals should start there own tradition.

Maybe instead of ‘married’, they could get ‘garried’ or ‘larried’ … :lol:

Peace
 
The issue is as simple as this.

Liberty is defined as the ability to live your life the way you choose to so long as your actions do not impede another individuals ability to do the same.

This is largely based in the principle of self ownership. You own you, and thus you should be able to do what you want with you. However, you don't own others, thus you cannot force others to do what you want or use the state and its institutions to deny others a right or privilege that you enjoy.

Basically in a free society, the government cannot be used as a vehicle to simply preserve cultural norms or promote religious ideals. The state is primarily used to protect the rights of the individual. Therefore, to deny gays and lesbians state recognized marriage, you have to demonstrate how granting them that privilege will impact the freedom of others. That cannot be reasonably done. Thus there is no reason in a free society to deny them that state recognition.
 
Blackdog said:
I want to preserve my way of life in my country by my principles. It has nothing to do with wanting to hurt anyone.
Click to expand...

And how does allowing total strangers to marry other total strangers of the same sex take away from your way of life? As long as they aren't forcing you into a gay marriage, it doesn't.

Furthermore, what exactly do you mean by your "way of life," and why is it desirable that the government protect it? Careful here.
 
Last edited:
winston53660 said:
I understand you point of view and have respect for it. But when things like this come up; transference of property, trust funds, life insurance, hospital visitation rights, etc. there are legal issues that become an issue for the state. I know gay couples that have been in 30 + year relationships and they really worry about these things. They have bought houses together and one has been the bread winner while the other took care of the home. W/O the protection of marriage the tax liabilities on their home could possibly force the surviving partner out of their family home when one or the other passed away.
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree. They should have exactly the same protections under the law be it civil unions or anything else.

This being the case; is it to much to ask to keep the sanctity of my marriage sacred?
 
Kandahar said:
And how does other people marrying other people of the same sex take away from your way of life? As long as they aren't forcing you into a gay marriage, it doesn't.

Furthermore, what exactly do you mean by your "way of life," and why is it desirable that the government protect it? Careful here.
Click to expand...

Read the post above.
 
Blackdog said:
I absolutely agree. They should have exactly the same protections under the law be it civil unions or anything else.

This being the case; is it to much to ask to keep the sanctity of my marriage sacred?
Click to expand...

Its only too much to ask to use the state as a vehicle in doing so. In free societies you cannot use the state to impose religious or cultural views. That is the province of the church, and other private institutions.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Its only too much to ask to use the state as a vehicle in doing so. In free societies you cannot use the state to impose religious or cultural views. That is the province of the church, and other private institutions.
Click to expand...

Could not agree more. This is why I want the state to get the heck out of the marriage business altogether.
 
Blackdog said:
I absolutely agree. They should have exactly the same protections under the law be it civil unions or anything else.

This being the case; is it to much to ask to keep the sanctity of my marriage sacred?
Click to expand...

Is your marriage not inherently sacred to you? How does the actions of the state or other people make it any less sacred?
 
Blackdog said:
I absolutely agree. They should have exactly the same protections under the law be it civil unions or anything else.
Click to expand...

As long as you have two parallel institutions, they will never truly be equal. Brown v Board of Education.

Blackdog said:
This being the case; is it to much to ask to keep the sanctity of my marriage sacred?
Click to expand...

It's not the government's job to "sanctify" things or keep them "sacred." That is between you and whatever church you attend. If gay marriage is legalized, no church will be forced to perform them...so your marriage will be exactly as "sacred" in the eyes of your religion as it was before.
 
Lachean said:
Is your marriage not inherently sacred to you? How does the actions of the state or other people make it any less sacred?
Click to expand...

Yes, they cheapen it by merely being involved for reasons I explained above.
 
Kandahar said:
As long as you have two parallel institutions, they will never truly be equal. Brown v Board of Education.
Click to expand...

Not true. They would not be parallel institutions. One is religious, the other is not.

Kandahar said:
It's not the government's job to "sanctify" things or keep them "sacred." That is between you and whatever church you attend. If gay marriage is legalized, no church will be forced to perform them...so your marriage will be exactly as "sacred" in the eyes of your religion as it was before.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I think it would undermine the already weak foundations of marriage.

PS I need to clarify...

I don't mean gay marriage would weaken it. I mean more government involvement.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
I absolutely agree. They should have exactly the same protections under the law be it civil unions or anything else.

This being the case; is it to much to ask to keep the sanctity of my marriage sacred?
Click to expand...

I think the sanctity of your marriage is with your partner and your God not the law of the state.
 
winston53660 said:
I think the sanctity of your marriage is with your partner and your God not the law of the state.
Click to expand...

Then the state needs to stay out of it, wouldn't you agree?
 
Blackdog said:
Then the state needs to stay out of it, wouldn't you agree?
Click to expand...

It depends on what you mean by that? No tax benefits for any kind of union? No joint-filing status? No alimony or state action whatsover?

Wives being legally no different than a girlfriend? Then hell yes I agree.
 
Last edited:
Lachean said:
Calling a spade a spade is not about earning cool points.

And you are a homophobe, shall I quote the many ways I know this?
Click to expand...

I do not have a phobia of gay people. The term homophobe is used by the pro-gay tranny crowd to demonize and shame those who oppose homosexuality or gay marriage. Spreading blatant lies does not further the agenda of gays and trannys..
 
jamesrage said:
I do not have a phobia of gay people. The term homophobe is used by the pro-gay tranny crowd to demonize and shame those who oppose homosexuality or gay marriage. Spreading blatant lies does not further the agenda of gays and trannys..
Click to expand...

I think your hatred of them is based on a fear, psychologically speaking I assume its fear of your own homosexuality.

Yes you are to an extent gay...
 
Lachean said:
It depends on what you mean by that? No tax benefits for any kind of union? No joint-filing status? No alimony or state action whatsover?

Wives being legally no different than a girlfriend? Then hell yes I agree.
Click to expand...

Then you see clearly my son. :lol:
 
It could be any of those on the list. It could be all of those on the list.

I tend to think of it as unenlightened. It is a fear. People are set in their ways and tend not to be open so much to change. If it was good enough for my mom and dada it must be....

It is the idea that change is not so great and a person is lock step with the past. If everyone stopped and thought about how many gay/lesbian people they know in thier day to day experience it would be great. We are everywhere and we do not stick out like a sore thumb. Gays and lesbians are just like evryone else.
 
Blackdog said:
Not true. They would not be parallel institutions. One is religious, the other is not.
Click to expand...

As long as the GOVERNMENT is involved in marriage, that is incorrect. Your church can do whatever it wants, but the GOVERNMENT should not have two parallel institutions...certainly not a religious one.

Blackdog said:
I disagree. I think it would undermine the already weak foundations of marriage.
Click to expand...

How so? I can't envision any scenario in which the legalization of gay marriage causes a heterosexual couple to get a divorce...unless, of course, it's to marry a person of the same gender. But that isn't really the fault of gay marriage.

Blackdog said:
PS I need to clarify...

I don't mean gay marriage would weaken it. I mean more government involvement.
Click to expand...

Gay marriage wouldn't result in any more government involvement. It would result in less, as the government would no longer be in the business of regulating who people can and can't marry, based on their gender.
 
Last edited:
Inferno said:
It could be any of those on the list. It could be all of those on the list.

I tend to think of it as unenlightened. It is a fear. People are set in their ways and tend not to be open so much to change. If it was good enough for my mom and dada it must be....

It is the idea that change is not so great and a person is lock step with the past. If everyone stopped and thought about how many gay/lesbian people they know in thier day to day experience it would be great. We are everywhere and we do not stick out like a sore thumb. Gays and lesbians are just like evryone else.
Click to expand...

This is the first thing I have seen you post I actually agree with.

Well said.
 
jamesrage said:
I do not have a phobia of gay people. The term homophobe is used by the pro-gay tranny crowd to demonize and shame those who oppose homosexuality or gay marriage. Spreading blatant lies does not further the agenda of gays and trannys..
Click to expand...

The term "homophobe" does get thrown around way too much. There are also people who object to gay marriage because they are afraid of gays in some way or another.
 
Kandahar said:
As long as the GOVERNMENT is involved in marriage, that is incorrect. Your church can do whatever it wants, but the GOVERNMENT should not have two parallel institutions.
Click to expand...

Typing in caps does not get your point across any better.

I disagree. I have already said why.

Kandahar said:
How so? I can't envision any scenario in which the legalization of gay marriage causes a heterosexual couple to get a divorce...unless, of course, it's to marry a person of the same gender. But that isn't really the fault of gay marriage.
Click to expand...

Again I have already stated why. I don't think you need me to repeat myself.

Kandahar said:
Gay marriage wouldn't result in any more government involvement. It would result in less, as the government would no longer be in the business of regulating who people can and can't marry, based on their gender.
Click to expand...

No. As history has shown us time and time again what you said is absolutely not true when the government gets involved even deeper in anything.
 
Kernel Sanders said:
There are many reasons that one could have for opposing same-sex marriage. It is entirely possible that such a person is a bigot or ignorant, but knowing a person's stance on gay marriage doesn't tell you anything other than their stance on gay marriage.
Click to expand...

If a person is against gay-marriage, it not only tells you their stance, but also tells you that they have failed to reason and they have failed to be open-minded. People who oppose gay-marriage are clinging to some misguided belief, whatever it may be, but they are still ignorantly clinging to it.
 
winston53660 said:
Granted you have your beliefs but I do not think the law/state should have beliefs.

And that is my belief;)
Click to expand...
The law of liberty believes people should be free. That's my belief.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom