• 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
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:

Most of what you say above is fine... but remember, there are always consequences for actions taken.

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.

Look, your opinion that the OP is a "trap" is not shared by others. I'm sorry you have a problem with the thread, but my suggestion stands.


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 didn't say "made within the last 48 hours"; I said there are other active threads on this topic. That's all.
 
I didn't say "made within the last 48 hours"; I said there are other active threads on this topic. That's all.

Right, they're old, meaning they've already been beating the dead horse for a while.

This thread is the fresh meat :mrgreen:
 
Besides, if you bother to check the url for that img, you'll see it came from funnyjunck.com..........:prof obviously satire :2wave:


Reading your response to it was like reading people who get pissed off over something said on the Daily Show :2razz:
 
Last edited:
Besides, if you bother to check the url for that img, you'll see it came from funnyjunck.com..........:prof obviously satire :2wave:

And some people who see that will accept is as truth. It fits in with some stereotypes that are presented by folks who are anti-gay. Heck, we've seen people at DP claim that there is a correlation between gays and pedophiles. There's a lot of propagandatized misinformation out there. Often something satirical can be used that way. It was not obviously satire. A disclaimer would have been helpful.
 
And some people who see that will accept is as truth. It fits in with some stereotypes that are presented by folks who are anti-gay. Heck, we've seen people at DP claim that there is a correlation between gays and pedophiles. There's a lot of propagandatized misinformation out there. Often something satirical can be used that way. It was not obviously satire. A disclaimer would have been helpful.

It's as I said on another thread: well thought-out posts go ignored, while off-the-cuff commentary or pic get's all the attention.

I've just spent some time considering my position on marriage and posted what I thought was on-topic and elevating even if not on the level of a True Debate, and what happened? The pic got all the attention, not the posts which took thought and effort.

It's not your fault, but it is the theme of DP.
 
It's as I said on another thread: well thought-out posts go ignored, while off-the-cuff commentary or pic get's all the attention.

I've just spent some time considering my position on marriage and posted what I thought was on-topic and elevating even if not on the level of a True Debate, and what happened? The pic got all the attention, not the posts which took thought and effort.

It's not your fault, but it is the theme of DP.

See, I disagree. I think well thought out posts get addressed pretty consistently. One key factor though, is that they need to be formatted well and they cannot be too long. However, inflammatory posts will always garner more attention, simply because they inflame and because people are here to debate/argue. The more passionate the position, and the more inflammatory the post, the more reactive the response.

The direction of this and several other gay marriage threads can often get raised to the level of a True Debate. I have most of them logged as they are some of my favorite debates. Often, though, all it takes is ONE bating post or poster to create problems. I am a firm believer in debunking misinformation. Allowing it to stand, unchallenged gives it credence. That's what happened here.
 
See, I disagree. I think well thought out posts get addressed pretty consistently. One key factor though, is that they need to be formatted well and they cannot be too long. However, inflammatory posts will always garner more attention, simply because they inflame and because people are here to debate/argue. The more passionate the position, and the more inflammatory the post, the more reactive the response.

The direction of this and several other gay marriage threads can often get raised to the level of a True Debate. I have most of them logged as they are some of my favorite debates. Often, though, all it takes is ONE bating post or poster to create problems. I am a firm believer in debunking misinformation. Allowing it to stand, unchallenged gives it credence. That's what happened here.

It follows that since my honest position on gay 'marriage void of passion and conflict that it would be passed by.
 
It follows that since my honest position on gay 'marriage void of passion and conflict that it would be passed by.

That's not exactly what I said. Positions of passion and/or conflict tend to create responses towards bait/inflammatory posts. That doesn't mean reasonable, lower key posts don't get responded to, nor does it mean that those who post those posts do not have passion.

If it wasn't the case that you reasonable, informative posts don't get responded to, you wouldn't have gotten into the positive debate you did with Zyph... or with me many times in the past.
 
"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.
That's a very interesting take, but I'm pretty sure it's an obfuscation. After all, "most efficient" is pretty subjective. Research seems to indicate that marriages fail not because one partner has to shoulder an inefficient workload, but because of communication issues, particularly when the partners aren't clear with each other from the beginning what they really want.
Certainly there are groups who have taken the division of labor to far, but that only serves to prove the rule.
Once again, this illogical assertion about exceptions proving rules. Exceptions don't prove rules, they weaken or break them.
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.
I'm glad you wouldn't prohibit gay couples from participating in counseling, but that doesn't speak to whether you'd allow them to marry. Is this just an elaborate way to avoid the question?
 
That's a very interesting take, but I'm pretty sure it's an obfuscation.

See Capt'n, I put thought into a post and all that happens is I get called a liar and accused of dodging when I directly answered.





choose_your_weapon_500x500.jpg
 
Last edited:
See Capt'n, I put thought into a post and all that happens is I get called a liar and accused of dodging when I directly answered.
I appreciate the thought in your post, but that doesn't mean it responded to the topic. I didn't call you a liar. Your response was interesting, but it didn't address the topic. You said you wouldn't mind gay couples attending the same kind of counseling as straight couples, but you still didn't say it would be okay for them to marry if they did.

I'm glad you think everyone should undergo counseling before getting married, but that doesn't address the question of equal protection unless you go that last step and say that if SS couples did jump through your hoops, you'd support marriage for them. Do you?
 
Last edited:
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

Just a suggestion....To get and accurate count you should have checked the box that allows you to see how everyone voted.......The way you did it the lefties can vote many times...Showing their name precludes that.......
 
Just a suggestion....To get and accurate count you should have checked the box that allows you to see how everyone voted.......The way you did it the lefties can vote many times...Showing their name precludes that.......

Or the righties can vote many times. This is why you should NEVER listen to polls, NP. Both sides could mess with them.
 
Just a suggestion....To get and accurate count you should have checked the box that allows you to see how everyone voted.......The way you did it the lefties can vote many times...Showing their name precludes that.......

Actually, NP, one of the cool things about being a DP Admin., is that I can see who voted even if the poll is NOT public. Guess what I found out? 5 "guests" voted for "no"; 8 "guests" voted for "yes". Everyone else was a DP member. That means, as of now, 13 members voted for "no" and 33 members voted for "yes". And several of those who voted for yes, identify themselves as conservatives.

So... you are completely wrong about your assumption.
 
I trust people to not cheat---it's that simple. Just a poll after all.----But even though I personally may not agree with Same sex marriage, or for that matter, marriage in it's present state, I think if same sex marriage is to become Law, it should cover everyone equally. and not favor Gay People, over Straight people. --To replace one form of discrimination with another is illogical at best. Same rules for everybody, and then I'm Jake. ---I can see two single guys with no family wanting to join forces for mutual protection, as they grow older. Someone with the legal right to help them with legal and health matters. Someone to visit them in the hospital, when they only allow in family members. Some one to represent their interest, should they become incapacitated. And to get the same tax benefits other Married people receive. It wouldn't bother me one bit to allow people to have somebody they can count on. --Sex would not have to even enter into the equation.
 
I trust people to not cheat---it's that simple. Just a poll after all.----But even though I personally may not agree with Same sex marriage, or for that matter, marriage in it's present state, I think if same sex marriage is to become Law, it should cover everyone equally. and not favor Gay People, over Straight people. --To replace one form of discrimination with another is illogical at best. Same rules for everybody, and then I'm Jake. ---I can see two single guys with no family wanting to join forces for mutual protection, as they grow older. Someone with the legal right to help them with legal and health matters. Someone to visit them in the hospital, when they only allow in family members. Some one to represent their interest, should they become incapacitated. And to get the same tax benefits other Married people receive. It wouldn't bother me one bit to allow people to have somebody they can count on. --Sex would not have to even enter into the equation.
Do you imagine there will be tests to determine whether a same-sex couple is genuinely gay before they'll be allowed to marry? Only I don't recall seeing that proposed anywhere by anyone. And I still seriously doubt that there will be many--if any--straight men who will want to marry a friend. Some women may be more disposed to it I suppose, but I think most men would hardly even dare to broach the idea... even in jest.
 
Same-sex marriage is as absurd as having animal marriage accepted and recognized by the state.
 
It actually is, because a few years ago gays put a ballot in front of me, asking for my support.:

You just made me grimace.
You're an asshole for thinking that you should be entitled to controlling other people. As long as you're happy, that's all that matters.
 
Can someone please tell K-1 how ignorant he is? I can't handle him. He's too ridiculous.
 
Same-sex marriage is as absurd as having animal marriage accepted and recognized by the state.

Thank you for proving that you know nothing about the topic.
 
Same-sex marriage is as absurd as having animal marriage accepted and recognized by the state.
As always, a ridiculous comparison. Same sex marriage is based on the decision of consenting, human adults. And consenting adults can do to one another whatever they both (or all) agree to, no? Only a fascist could possibly think otherwise. Don't you think so?
 
As always, a ridiculous comparison. Same sex marriage is based on the decision of consenting, human adults. And consenting adults can do to one another whatever they both (or all) agree to, no? Only a fascist could possibly think otherwise. Don't you think so?

I don't agree with K-1, but your assertion is just as ridicules. Under the law their are many things two or more human adults cannot do to one another with consent. Then to say only a fascist would think otherwise basically says you don't really understand the meaning of the word "fascism."
 
I don't agree with K-1, but your assertion is just as ridicules. Under the law their are many things two or more human adults cannot do to one another with consent. Then to say only a fascist would think otherwise basically says you don't really understand the meaning of the word "fascism."

Interesting. Could you provide a list of things that two consenting adults cannot do with each other under the law?
 
Interesting. Could you provide a list of things that two consenting adults cannot do with each other under the law?
I can.

  1. Be paid for sex.
  2. Smoke marijuana, or use other illegal substances.
  3. Drink alcohol, if under the age of 21 (but still adults).
  4. Make a wager on a sport or game of chance (e.g. poker).
  5. Assisted suicide.
  6. Drive without seatbelts.
  7. Ride a motorcycle without helmets.
  8. Buy/sell sex toys in Alabama.
  9. Read an obscene comic book.
  10. Watch obscene pornography.
  11. Gay marriage.

I'm sure some of my fellow libertarians can add to this short list. :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom