• 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 People be allowed to Marry

Should Same Sex People be allowed to Marry

  • yes,-- everybody should be treated equal

    Votes: 69 74.2%
  • No--some people should recieve preferential treatment

    Votes: 24 25.8%

  • Total voters
    93
Jerry's images.

Jerry... you've GOT to be kidding. You know as well as I that what you posted was nothing but inaccurate propaganda. That book is the worst kind of misrepresenation, and, in my eyes, teaches hate. That is NOT how counselors act (ethical ones) and that is NOT how homosexuality occurs. Further, the "book" perpetuates the myth that homosexuals are pedophiles. The book should be burned.

That was one of the most disgusting posts I've seen at DP in a long while.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I saw that. Which, of course, makes it trolling, rather than an actual poll.




He does admit it.
I do beleive it is a valid question however. ---If the Law allows Same Sex people to get Married, my point is, that the Law should apply equally across the board, and not to show preferential treatment to people that profess to be gay. A persons sexual orientation, should have bearing on how they are covered by the law. A Neutered Male, should have the same rights as any other Person, under%2
 
Last edited:
Jerry... you've GOT to be kidding. You know as well as I that what you posted was nothing but inaccurate propaganda. That book is the worst kind of misrepresenation, and, in my eyes, teaches hate. That is NOT how counselors act (ethical ones) and that is NOT how homosexuality occurs. Further, the "book" perpetuates the myth that homosexuals are pedophiles. The book should be burned.

That was one of the most disgusting posts I've seen at DP in a long while.

Couldn't have said it better myself.
 
It does us good, to have inaccurate information thrown at us. --It teaches to be real careful about what we believe. I believe nothing I hear, little of what I read, and often question what I see. ---things are seldom what they seem.
 
I do beleive it is a valid question however.

No matter how valid the question, your poll is not. And you DEvalue the question by posting such a thing.
 
Phishing, actually.


Notice how I posted the image without comment, and then assumptions abounded.

It's quite telling.
So you want to suggest something "telling" about what we THOUGHT you meant? And your whole intention was to point that out--except that you haven't actually pointed anything out?

This is a tactic for avoiding an argument, not participating in one. It's an inherently disingenuous action, much more disingenuous than the poll, which is kind of an outright challenge to prove that prohibiting same-sex marriage ISN'T unequal treatment. Your post is just a bigoted piece of ****.
 
So you want to suggest something "telling" about what we THOUGHT you meant? And your whole intention was to point that out--except that you haven't actually pointed anything out?

This is a tactic for avoiding an argument, not participating in one. It's an inherently disingenuous action, much more disingenuous than the poll, which is kind of an outright challenge to prove that prohibiting same-sex marriage ISN'T unequal treatment. Your post is just a bigoted piece of ****.

This is a bait thread, games like this are what this thread is all about :2wave:

Why don't you stop crying and bait me back :mrgreen:
 
This is a bait thread, games like this are what this thread is all about :2wave:

Why don't you stop crying and bait me back :mrgreen:
I'd rather actually prove you got nothin'.
 
Phishing, actually.


Notice how I posted the image without comment, and then assumptions abounded.

It's quite telling.

I had a feeling you were testing. Regardless, my comments stand. And truthfully, Jer... the phishing is starting to get old.
 
Not as old as these partisan polls :2wave:

Jerry... if you don't like the thread, don't post on it. There are plenty of others... even several on this particular topic.
 
Jerry... if you don't like the thread, don't post on it.

If you don't like gay 'marriage, don't marry a gay; if you don't like abortion, don't have one; if you don't like slavery, don't own one; if you don't like child support, don't pay it ;)

Gotta love that logic :mrgreen:

I was enjoying my exchange with Zef, but I guess he realized the trap he fell into and stopped responding, so I sprang another, just like the OP did.

There are plenty of others... even several on this particular topic.

There are new threads on this topic? As in 'made within the last 48 hours'? Thanks Capt'n I'll check that out :2wave:
 
I brought this up on another thread the other night. It just kind of rolled out in response to a "Gays getting married" thread.--but the more I think about,the more it seems like a legitimate question. I ask why would two people of the same sex, have to be homosexual to get married? --Because once married, they would then be able enjoy the benefits that go along with being married. Such as tax Breaks, special insurance rates, and so on. If Two Homo Men can get Married legally, then why couldn't two straight Men get married also? (Not that I would want to, but just sayin) Just seems to be more discrimination against Straight Guys to me. Male is Male, and Female is Female, regardless of sexual orientation.-So my question is, if made legal, should two people of the same sex be allowed to marry, whether they are Homosexuals or not? ---this could be interesting

Gay marriage is not an equality issue.

It never was.

I suspect gay 'marriage will go the rout of women's right to vote: SCOTUS will claim the right does not exist, and then we will have to create an amendment to establish it.
 
Gay marriage is not an equality issue.

It never was.

I suspect gay 'marriage will go the rout of women's right to vote: SCOTUS will claim the right does not exist, and then we will have to create an amendment to establish it.
All I know is--If Gay Guys can get married, and reap the benefits, than Straight Guys should have the same rights.---I don't think either is right, but it is not my business what two people do. As long as they are all covered equally under the Law. --I'm so over special privilege for one group---and zero for another. fair is fair.
 
All I know is--If Gay Guys can get married, and reap the benefits, than Straight Guys should have the same rights.---I don't think either is right, but it is not my business what two people do. As long as they are all covered equally under the Law. --I'm so over special privilege for one group---and zero for another. fair is fair.

I think it is my business, and I think that because we're talking about the rules everyone has to play by, including me.

I entered into an institution, and if I think a group of people are not doing what the institution I'm a part of is about, I'm not going to support their entering it.

Marriage is not about supporting just whatever sort of relationship someone wants to be in. It's about a specific type of relationship with specific goals.

I would never stop someone from having other types of relationships, they have every right to free association as everyone else, but if they're not doing this specific type of relationship then they have no business seeking the legal buffs.
 
Last edited:
I think it is my business

Thank God it is not. You play by your religion's rules and others can play by theirs. You do not deserve certain legal rights, because of your religion's silly rules, while denying others the same. That's hypocrisy. It's only a matter of time before people like you have to accept that fact. It's just a matter of time.
 
Marriage is not about supporting just whatever sort of relationship someone wants to be in. It's about a specific type of relationship with specific goals.

What are those specific goals?
 
Thank God it is not.

It actually is, because a few years ago gays put a ballot in front of me, asking for my support.

You play by your religion's rules and others can play by theirs.You do not deserve certain legal rights, because of your religion's silly rules, while denying others the same. That's hypocrisy. It's only a matter of time before people like you have to accept that fact. It's just a matter of time.

Who's talking about religion? :confused::confused:
 
What are those specific goals?

If you're asking as a tangent, not as an attempt to change the subject: Marriage is about forming and maintaining the nuclear family, with the state's interest in marriage being the raising of children.

I see no reason why gays couldn't or shouldn't be accepted if the only thing different between their relationship and a hetero couple starting a family are the sexes involved.

Regardless of sex, couples who simply want to live together have no business getting married. We can thank childless hetero couples for enabling the modern gay 'marriage movement. Their selfishness is empowering hyper-individualism, which has proven to be a socially destructive force.
 
Last edited:
Until they are granted the ability to engage fully in their right to contract and obtain a marriage license, they are not allowed to marry in all 50 states.
Yes they are (in the traditional sense). Which is why the "controversy" is pure baloney - marriage in the traditional sense is totally unrelated to "legal marriage" (and gays can have wedding ceremonies anyway). So why is the anti-gay marriage group obsessed with "legal marriage"? If they're worried about traditions being destroyed, then they should focus their attention on liberal churches that wed gay couples.

But go figure with those guys. :doh
 
Marriage is not about supporting just whatever sort of relationship someone wants to be in. It's about a specific type of relationship with specific goals.
And yet two people of opposite sexes may have any number of sorts of relationships, many sorts of which you might not approve, and yet they are married. A man and a woman can have an open relationship. They can agree never to have children. A gay man and a lesbian can get married with the intention of sleeping with members of their own sex.

At one time, the traditional marriage where the woman stayed home and the man worked was the only sort people thought of, and for a woman to work outside the home was considered close to a scandal. This argument for the traditional is just silly and it was betrayed long ago by heterosexuals (it pretty much all changed in the first half of the 20th century, though it didn't come to full fruition until the early seventies.
I would never stop someone from having other types of relationships, they have every right to free association as everyone else, but if they're not doing this specific type of relationship then they have no business seeking the legal buffs.
So you would also deny marriage licenses to any heterosexual couples whose intentions for their marriage don't line up with your own views?
 
And yet two people of opposite sexes may have any number of sorts of relationships, many sorts of which you might not approve, and yet they are married. A man and a woman can have an open relationship. They can agree never to have children. A gay man and a lesbian can get married with the intention of sleeping with members of their own sex.

At one time, the traditional marriage where the woman stayed home and the man worked was the only sort people thought of, and for a woman to work outside the home was considered close to a scandal. This argument for the traditional is just silly and it was betrayed long ago by heterosexuals (it pretty much all changed in the first half of the 20th century, though it didn't come to full fruition until the early seventies.

"Traditional" marriage is based on a relationship which divides up the workload in the most efficient manner. This generally results in more successful marriages, which in turn results in a more successful society over all.

You may note that most divorces come from unions which were unable to establish an effectively divided workload, for whatever reason, resulting in financial hardship. The main chore which is usually inefficient is money management, either according to who wants to earn how much or in the rules which govern how the couple decides how the money is spent.

Certainly there are groups who have taken the division of labor to far, but that only serves to prove the rule.

So you would also deny marriage licenses to any heterosexual couples whose intentions for their marriage don't line up with your own views?

Yes.

Take Britney Spears, for example. That's a marriage which shouldn't have happened. I promote a healthy dose of pre-marital counseling which should address not only personal views but issue a fundamental level of personal finance management. The couple should walk away from such a program with not only a more intimidate understanding of each other, but also a 5-year financial plan.

I see no reason to prohibit a gay couple from participating is such a program.
 
Last edited:
The Fourteenth Amendment protects against discrimination. Saying that marriage doesn't include a Same-Sex Option is like saying the Missionary Position doesn't include a Same-Sex option.
 
The Fourteenth Amendment protects against discrimination. Saying that marriage doesn't include a Same-Sex Option is like saying the Missionary Position doesn't include a Same-Sex option.

Marital status is also a protected class, so I trust you have no problem with polygamy?
 
Back
Top Bottom