• 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!

Can a person be against Gay Marriage and not be a bigot?

Can a person be anti Gay marriage and not be a bigot?

  • Total voters
    70
Hatuey said:
Only rules can and are usually bent, changed, expanded etc to match the evolution of a society.
Click to expand...

Sometimes this is a good thing, sometimes not.

As you said before it is a case by case thing here.
 
Blackdog said:
Sometimes this is a good thing, sometimes not.

As you said before it is a case by case thing here.
Click to expand...

Why is it bad if gay people get married? Will your children be unable to marry? Will they be denied rights, privileges etc because of this? Will they become gay or something? Will you? If the answer to all of these questions is 'no'. Then you've got no logical explanation for denying anybody the right, privilege(whatever it is Goobieman is calling it these days) to marry. Specially not because of your beliefs. If the answer to them is yes, I'd be more than willing to explain to you why you can't simply become a homosexual. Remember you are born homosexual. You decide to engage in homosexual behavior. Just like you were born straight and chose to engage in heterosexual behavior.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
Remember you are born homosexual. You decide to engage in homosexual behavior. Just like you were born straight and chose to engage in heterosexual behavior.
Click to expand...

I see what you did there...
 
Last edited:
CaptainCourtesy said:
My argument is NOT whether or not this would be an added right. My argument IS that arguing from the position that "gays can still marry...just not someone of the same sex" is silly and irrelevant and does not take into consideration the reason this issue is an issue: sexual orientation. You know my position on this, Jerry. Just irks me to see people make silly arguments on this issue, either pro or con.
Click to expand...

Let me ask you with sincerity: is their orientation fulfilling the roll of marriage as "vital to the survival of mankind" (Skinner-v-OK)?
 
Jerry said:
Let me ask you with sincerity: is their orientation fulfilling the roll of marriage as "vital to the survival of mankind" (Skinner-v-OK)?
Click to expand...

Their role of sex certainly itsn't it! ZING!
 
EpicDude86 said:
I see what you did there...
Click to expand...

Can you blame me? Bit of a dirty trick to pull this late in the conversation but you gotta do whatchu gotta do! ;)
 
Hatuey said:
You're distorting what I said Jerry. Marriage is not an institution. The Catholic Church is an institution. Universities are institutions. A police department is an institution. Marriage is contractual agreement currently defined as being between a man and a woman. What is being sought is the expansion of this definition to be between two willing participants. So yes, that would be a change in the law. But not the complete make over you want to paint it as.
Click to expand...

Marriage is the establishment of a significant practice, relationship, or organization in a society or culture; therefore marriage is an institution.

Please consult Webster and re-dress your argument to account for this new information.

Hatuey said:
Only rules can and are usually bent, changed, expanded etc to match the evolution of a society.
Click to expand...

Yes they can be, but that doesn't mean rights are being denied gays today.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
Why is it bad if gay people get married?
Click to expand...

I have no idea, I have mixed emotions on the issue.

Hatuey said:
Will your children be unable to marry? Will they be denied rights, privileges etc because of this? Will they become gay or something? Will you? If the answer to all of these questions is 'no'. Then you've got no logical explanation for denying anybody the right, privilege(whatever it is Goobieman is calling it these days) to marry.
Click to expand...

#1 It's not a right.
#2 I do not condone the lifestyle in any way, this does not mean I would deny anyone the same benefits as a married hetero couple. I mean realistically if this is not about benefits from the state, what is it about?

Hatuey said:
Specially not because of your beliefs. If the answer to them is yes, I'd be more than willing to explain to you why you can't simply become a homosexual. Remember you are born homosexual. You decide to engage in homosexual behavior. Just like you were born straight and chose to engage in heterosexual behavior.
Click to expand...

I absolutely can follow my beliefs as I see fit. You can explain all day and it will not make it right in my eyes or the eyes of many others.

Welcome to the real world, we don't always agree for one reason or another.

In the end it has nothing to do with my comment. All I said was change for whatever reason is not always good. History will bear me out on that.
 
Blackdog said:
#1 It's not a right.
#2 I do not condone the lifestyle in any way, this does not mean I would deny anyone the same benefits as a married hetero couple. I mean realistically if this is not about benefits from the state, what is it about?
Click to expand...

The situation in CA teaches us that the issue is about validating an identity.

In CA gays have the ability to share each and every single Civil Right as a married couple, with someone of the same sex, through Domestic Partnership. This is true even under Prop8.

Yet gays want their identity validated with inclusion into "marriage". The legal buffs are secondary to this goal, and the welfare of the family a distant 3rd place.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I've explained it twice, at least, in this thread.
Click to expand...
If you're referring to "Argumentum ad antiquitatem" I don't see how it's relevant (the "the rights are the same" argument is different than the "because it's how it's always been" argument).

CaptainCourtesy said:
The lack of logic is saying that gays can marry anyone they want...of the opposite sex.
Click to expand...
A fact (so long as the other person is willing, of sufficient age, not related, not a second or third or fourth spouse, etc.)

CaptainCourtesy said:
This ignores why this is an issue in the first place: sexual orientation. Hence the reasoning, by ignoring the argument/issue completely, is illogical.
Click to expand...
Right. So the argument isn't illogical. It's only "illogical" (in a second-tier definition of the term) from a contextual view because it doesn't satisfactorily address the issue in the manner you've chosen to frame it.

From the viewpoint that we should, as a state, encourage families that consist of one man and one woman, it's perfectly logical that all are afforded that same opportunity for whatever government consequences arise from that arrangement.
 
Hatuey said:
Then you've got no logical explanation for denying anybody the right, privilege(whatever it is Goobieman is calling it these days) to marry.
Click to expand...
It's not really an issue of "denying rights" it's an issue of whether or not the state should encourage such relationships. In other words, nobody is going to arrest you if you marry your same-sex lover, the state is just not going to recognize it as it would a heterosexual relationship.
 
Hey so, ya know....If two gay people get married or civilly-unified, and they have sex on their wedding night in a state that has laws that qualify it as Sodomy, can they be arrested for that? or do you have to catch em in the act? Does a Gay Honeymoon count as probably cause to bust in on 'em?
 
EpicDude86 said:
Hey so, ya know....If two gay people get married or civilly-unified, and they have sex on their wedding night in a state that has laws that qualify it as Sodomy, can they be arrested for that? or do you have to catch em in the act? Does a Gay Honeymoon count as probably cause to bust in on 'em?
Click to expand...


That's an interesting question, and almost mirrors exactly the circumstances that led to the striking down of miscegenation laws via the Loving case. The only difference being, it wasn't their honeymoon. But they were arrested in their bedroom. :shock:
 
jackalope said:
That's an interesting question, and almost mirrors exactly the circumstances that led to the striking down of miscegenation laws via the Loving case. The only difference being, it wasn't their honeymoon. But they were arrested in their bedroom. :shock:
Click to expand...

Hmmmm, well if we know it's illegal to perform these acts let's hurry and round up all the Butt Pirates and Rug Munchers and maybe that'll weaken their resolve!
 
Jerry said:
The situation in CA teaches us that the issue is about validating an identity.

In CA gays have the ability to share each and every single Civil Right as a married couple, with someone of the same sex, through Domestic Partnership. This is true even under Prop8.

Yet gays want their identity validated with inclusion into "marriage". The legal buffs are secondary to this goal, and the welfare of the family a distant 3rd place.
Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity, where did you hear this information? From chatting with friends of mine who happen to be gay, they seem to want what heterosexual couples want when they involve themselves in a marriage - legal recognition, a family, and validation. All three of these you listed, and there is probably more. What I am curious about is how you somehow arrived at the conclusion that the 'welfare of the family' is a distant third, because i'd say this is incorrect. Furthermore, what homosexuals want in regards to marriage is what heterosexuals want as well, wouldn't you agree?
 
Last edited:
Navy Pride said:
I am asking the people who are pro gay marriage this question..........
Click to expand...

I think that they "can" but I doubt that more than .5% of those against gay marriage actually are.
 
Taylor said:
It's not really an issue of "denying rights" it's an issue of whether or not the state should encourage such relationships. In other words, nobody is going to arrest you if you marry your same-sex lover, the state is just not going to recognize it as it would a heterosexual relationship.
Click to expand...

The state is in the business of protecting our rights, and if they are allowing some to marry and not others, or recognizing some and not others in a legal sense, then the state is being unequal in its distribution or rights and recognitions.
 
Bodhisattva said:
The state is in the business of protecting our rights, and if they are allowing some to marry and not others, or recognizing some and not others in a legal sense, then the state is being unequal in its distribution or rights and recognitions.
Click to expand...

inb4 Welfare, Medicaid, Pell Grants, etc.
 
Sure. I can understand how some allow dogma to overcloud their minds on this issue. I really feel there are some folks who are not mean spirited but they allow dogma to control how they feel about this and they really think in their minds they are doing the right thing.

I cannot hate a person who has no ill intent towards gay people but feel that Gay Marriage is totally againist their Bible Teaching. I can understand it and coming from the South? I know a lot of kind hearted people who love gays but just do not think they should be able to marry. I disagree with them but respect they have every right to feel as they feel.

And I am bisexual so no need to think I have some agenda saying this either.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
Yes, a person can. I just haven't seen it yet.
Click to expand...

You should come visit me and meet some of my family. I will show you some people that have no hate in their heart and could not have even if they tried. They simply do not support gay marriage. I have tried to tread lightly and talk to them about it but it really is useless cause they are not gonna change their minds due to they really are sheep. I am not saying that in a mean way cause I love em but they are blinded and binded in their faith and it is sad to me. :(
 
Jerry said:
Let me ask you with sincerity: is their orientation fulfilling the roll of marriage as "vital to the survival of mankind" (Skinner-v-OK)?
Click to expand...

In as much as a childless couple. In as much as an infertile couple that chooses to adopt. See how this goes 'round and 'round? The rights argument is a loser argument from both sides, anyway; neither side has much of a leg to stand on...we both know that. This is another reason why most of the responses here, for either side, are not relevant and easily disputed.
 
Hatuey said:
Remember you are born homosexual. You decide to engage in homosexual behavior. Just like you were born straight and chose to engage in heterosexual behavior.
Click to expand...

You copied me!!! ;) I've been using this argument for years, here.
 
Taylor said:
If you're referring to "Argumentum ad antiquitatem" I don't see how it's relevant (the "the rights are the same" argument is different than the "because it's how it's always been" argument).
Click to expand...

Partially. But you are missing the point and thinking too narrowly. Ask yourself this: since not all couples who are married procreate, why do two people choose to get married? If you are honest about the answer, you will then understand why the argument you are making (gays can marry...just people of the opposite sex) is illogical.


A fact (so long as the other person is willing, of sufficient age, not related, not a second or third or fourth spouse, etc.)
Click to expand...

That's true. Currently, this is the case.


Right. So the argument isn't illogical. It's only "illogical" (in a second-tier definition of the term) from a contextual view because it doesn't satisfactorily address the issue in the manner you've chosen to frame it.
Click to expand...

No, it's illogical in a contextual view because it doesn't satisfactorily address the issue AS IT IS. YOU'VE chosen to frame it inaccurately.

From the viewpoint that we should, as a state, encourage families that consist of one man and one woman, it's perfectly logical that all are afforded that same opportunity for whatever government consequences arise from that arrangement.
Click to expand...

That brings me back to my question above. Let's see you answer it honestly. If procreation is not a requirement for marriage, why do two people choose to get married?
 
Kali said:
You should come visit me and meet some of my family. I will show you some people that have no hate in their heart and could not have even if they tried. They simply do not support gay marriage. I have tried to tread lightly and talk to them about it but it really is useless cause they are not gonna change their minds due to they really are sheep. I am not saying that in a mean way cause I love em but they are blinded and binded in their faith and it is sad to me. :(
Click to expand...

What a lovely thing to say about one's family.

epicdude86-albums-stuff-picture1162-thats-like-your-opinion-man.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom