• 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
Blackdog said:
If I live within a society, I have every right to change it or support it how I see fit.
Click to expand...

True, you have the right to attempt to change the law. To change or make laws to serve your selfish fears does not serve all members of that society. I want to drive my Harley as fast as it will go but, I accept speed limits for the safety of others.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
If your talking about hate crimes, that's another discussion.

Just talking about gay people getting married, it doesn't effect you at all.
Click to expand...

It may not now, but it most certainly can in the future. You cannot guarantee me it will not.

Harry Guerrilla said:
Meh, most of what I believe isn't supported by the majority people.
I'm used to it.
Click to expand...

Again, apathy is our greatest enemy.
 
Blackdog said:
No it is not.

If I live within a society, I have every right to change it or support it how I see fit.
Click to expand...

In truth, regulating morality is an inevitable byproduct of a social society. The problems isn't with legislating according to morality, since that cannot be prevented.

The problem is when that legislation encompasses and directly affects too many people who disagree with the primary moral impetus for the legislation. That, IMO, is when legislating morality becomes a hindrance to societal advancement, and promotes the decay of a civilization.
 
ADK_Forever said:
True, you have the right to attempt to change the law. To change or make laws to serve your selfish fears does not serve all members of that society.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about it being "selfish" that is pretty subjective. I do not support gay marraige because I see it as no good for society, not me personally. Personally I don't care. So your "selfish" has nothing to do with me.

ADK_Forever said:
I want to drive my Harley as fast as it will go but, I accept speed limits for the safety of others.
Click to expand...

You accept speed limits because of the threat of force if you disobey.

Please leave the righteous indignation at home. :roll:
 
Last edited:
Tucker Case said:
In truth, regulating morality is an inevitable byproduct of a social society. The problems isn't with legislating according to morality, since that cannot be prevented.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Tucker Case said:
The problem is when that legislation encompasses and directly affects too many people who disagree with the primary moral impetus for the legislation. That, IMO, is when legislating morality becomes a hindrance to societal advancement, and promotes the decay of a civilization.
Click to expand...

I see the exact opposite. I see the moral decay bringing us down. Which in turn affects the legislation.
 
Blackdog said:
I see the exact opposite. I see the moral decay bringing us down. Which in turn affects the legislation.
Click to expand...

I don't believe in moral decay. There are merely different moralities.

Civilization is destroyed when two opposing moral groups vie for control over each other instead of over their own destinies.
 
Nothing decays morality more than too much wealth. I guess that's an argument for significantly limiting income inequality.
 
Tucker Case said:
I don't believe in moral decay. There are merely different moralities.
Click to expand...

This is where we disagree, I do. Does not make me correct, so I will just agree to disagree.

Tucker Case said:
Civilization is destroyed when two opposing moral groups vie for control over each other instead of over their own destinies.
Click to expand...

History will be written by the victor. The destruction of a civilization is not always a bad thing.

Sometimes violent change is needed.
 
Rassales said:
Nothing decays morality more than too much wealth. I guess that's an argument for significantly limiting income inequality.
Click to expand...

That is actually a good point, lol!
 
Blackdog said:
This is where we disagree, I do. Does not make me correct, so I will just agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

I agree to agree to disagree. :mrgreen:



History will be written by the victor. The destruction of a civilization is not always a bad thing.

Sometimes violent change is needed.
Click to expand...

I would say "unavoidable" instead of "needed" for the slight, subtle difference it implies, but generally I'm in agreement.
 
Blackdog said:
Who said anything about it being "selfish"
Click to expand...

To make laws based on "your" wishes and fears of homosexuality is... selfish.

I do not support gay marraige because I see it as no good for society, not me personally.
Click to expand...

How is it "not good" for society?

You accept speed limits because of the threat of force if you disobey.
Click to expand...

That certainly is a reality but, I agree that "speed kills". If everyone drove like we all wanted to many would be killed and injured. It's the needs of the many versus the needs of the few type thing.

Please leave the righteous indignation at home.
Click to expand...

Does righteous indignation make you feel uncomfortable?
 
ADK_Forever said:
To make laws based on "your" wishes and fears of homosexuality is... selfish.
Click to expand...

If it was based on a "fear" you may have had a point. :doh

ADK_Forever said:
How is it "not good" for society?
Click to expand...

Because it is not morally acceptable that a marraige is a man and a man etc.

ADK_Forever said:
That certainly is a reality but, I agree that "speed kills". If everyone drove like we all wanted to many would be killed and injured. It's the needs of the many versus the needs of the few type thing.
Click to expand...

Well gays make up what? 2% of the population. Looks like the "needs" of the many in this case are being met.

ADK_Forever said:
Does righteous indignation make you feel uncomfortable?
Click to expand...

No, it makes you look silly and boring. No insult intended, but you asked.
 
Jerry said:
White-wash tactic, a form of stawman. You're trying to derail the conversation.
Click to expand...

ok, good point, though that wasnt intentional, but my point is why do morals have to play a part in it, marriage isn't a religious institution any more, it is simply a symbol of two peoples love, and while they can get the legal bits with a civil union, gays just want the symbloism to go with it, and why is that such a bad thing?
 
Blackdog said:
If it was based on a "fear" you may have had a point.
Click to expand...

I see all of this anti-gay rights as being based on fear. Fear of anything different than you. Fear of people thinking and behaving different than you. Just plain old fashioned, ignorant fear. Nothing personal.

Because it is not morally acceptable that a marraige is a man and a man etc.
Click to expand...

By whom, people who can't think outside selected passages of a book like the bible? Morals shaped by religious teachings very often lead to discrimination, an "us against them" attitude.

No, it makes you look silly and boring. No insult intended, but you asked.
Click to expand...

Name calling? That tactic may work for other people who think in terms of narrow views but, it has no effect on people thinking of the bigger picture.
 
spud_meister said:
ok, good point, though that wasnt intentional, but my point is why do morals have to play a part in it, marriage isn't a religious institution any more, it is simply a symbol of two peoples love, and while they can get the legal bits with a civil union, gays just want the symbloism to go with it, and why is that such a bad thing?
Click to expand...

Marriage is a sociological institution. The religious aspect is a part, not an alternative whole. The legal aspect is a part, not an alternative whole. The personal relationship is a part, not an alternative whole.

Attempting to separate the parts and represent them as independent wholes is dishonest.
 
Navy Pride said:
Well it sems the polls are much closer when the names are shown and there is usually a much bigger disparity from the left.....That was my only point........
Click to expand...

Here's what I posted before, NP:

CaptainCourtesy said:
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.
Click to expand...

In this situation, the poll is accurate.
 
ADK_Forever said:
I see all of this anti-gay rights as being based on fear. Fear of anything different than you. Fear of people thinking and behaving different than you. Just plain old fashioned, ignorant fear. Nothing personal.
Click to expand...

Well you are wrong as it has nothing to do with fear at all. I would also like to point out the key to what you said is "I see all" and this is nothing more than a bigoted blanket statement on your part.

ADK_Forever said:
By whom, people who can't think outside selected passages of a book like the bible? Morals shaped by religious teachings very often lead to discrimination, an "us against them" attitude.
Click to expand...

In some cases yes, in some no. I mean lets look at Nazi Germany. They burned gays and it had nothing to do with religion. Same in Stalins Russia and other places through the century's. Much of the time religion is used as a scape goat when the religions teachings have nothing to do with what is being done.

ADK_Forever said:
Name calling? That tactic may work for other people who think in terms of narrow views but, it has no effect on people thinking of the bigger picture.
Click to expand...

Please point out where I called you out of your name? That is a rather lame and disingenuous answer.

You asked a question and I gave an honest answer that said "it makes you look," unlike you.

If I cannot answer a question you asked honestly, then this is over.
 
Blackdog said:
Well you are wrong as it has nothing to do with fear at all.
Click to expand...

It is all about fear.

In some cases yes, in some no. I mean lets look at Nazi Germany. They burned gays and it had nothing to do with religion. Same in Stalins Russia and other places through the century's. Much of the time religion is used as a scape goat when the religions teachings have nothing to do with what is being done.
Click to expand...

True. Granted it is people twisting their religious teachings to believe they have the right to treat people terribly in the name of their religion. And anti-gay beliefs are also supported by cherry picking religious teachings, all of which have been written and twisted by... man.

Please point out where I called you out of your name? That is a rather lame and disingenuous answer.

You asked a question and I gave an honest answer that said "it makes you look," unlike you.
Click to expand...

You accused me of righteous indignation, whose definition is: "Righteous indignation is typically a reactive emotion of anger over perceived mistreatment, insult, or malice." Your accusing me of this demonstrates "your" inability to control your emotions, probably because you know I'm right when I say anti-gay attitudes are based in fear, and spinning this label on me when it is you with the indignation.

"It makes you look" is a veiled way to inject a personal attack as this is your personal opinion.
 
ADK_Forever said:
It is all about fear.
Click to expand...

You can continue with the erroneous blanket statements, but it really proves nothing but your own bigotry.

ADK_Forever said:
True. Granted it is people twisting their religious teachings to believe they have the right to treat people terribly in the name of their religion. And anti-gay beliefs are also supported by cherry picking religious teachings, all of which have been written and twisted by... man.
Click to expand...

None of the statements in the Bible about homosexuality have been twisted. It is kind of hard to misinterpret "a man shall not lie with a man as he does with a woman," etc.

ADK_Forever said:
You accused me of righteous indignation, whose definition is: "Righteous indignation is typically a reactive emotion of anger over perceived mistreatment, insult, or malice." Your accusing me of this demonstrates "your" inability to control your emotions, probably because you know I'm right when I say anti-gay attitudes are based in fear, and spinning this label on me when it is you with the indignation.
Click to expand...

OK you have not a clue about what I said. I did not even imply anything you are stating. You are obviously a liar, and have proved such with this statement.

ADK_Forever said:
"It makes you look" is a veiled way to inject a personal attack as this is your personal opinion.
Click to expand...

I did not attack anything. You asked why, I told you.

If I said something like "You are an idiot because you don't know the difference between an ad hom and an attack on your illogical rant." That would have been a personal attack, not what I said. I did not even imply some kind of attack hidden or otherwise with my initial statement.

Keep up with the lies. You only dishonor yourself and your own integrity.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
None of the statements in the Bible about homosexuality have been twisted. It is kind of hard to misinterpret "a man shall not lie with a man as he does with a woman," etc.
Click to expand...
It's just as clear as ""do not plant your field with two kinds of seed" or "do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" (Leviticus 19:19). My Bible has this commandment and the one you mention ON THE SAME PAGE.

Just for the record, it's likely that "lie with a man as you do a woman" has only to do with one kind of sexual act, the one act that ancient peoples associated with heterosexual sex. And it had a purpose--to make sure as many sperm as possible got a fair shot at fertilizing an egg. We needed more people back then. Now we have something of an oversupply.
 
Rassales said:
It's just as clear as ""do not plant your field with two kinds of seed" or "do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" (Leviticus 19:19). My Bible has this commandment and the one you mention ON THE SAME PAGE.
Click to expand...

To bad the OT laws do not apply to modern Gentiles. :roll:

That was Gods laws for the Israelites.

Rassales said:
Just for the record, it's likely that "lie with a man as you do a woman" has only to do with one kind of sexual act, the one act that ancient peoples associated with heterosexual sex.
Click to expand...

That is utter hogwash.

A man can NOT have sex for breading with another man. :roll:

Rassales said:
And it had a purpose--to make sure as many sperm as possible got a fair shot at fertilizing an egg. We needed more people back then. Now we have something of an oversupply.
Click to expand...

So what? :doh
 
Jerry said:
Marriage is a sociological institution. The religious aspect is a part, not an alternative whole. The legal aspect is a part, not an alternative whole. The personal relationship is a part, not an alternative whole.

Attempting to separate the parts and represent them as independent wholes is dishonest.
Click to expand...

Why is it that you can be married in the eyes of whatever God you worship but if the government doesn't recognize it through it's bureaucracy, you're not recognized by society as being married? I think it is you who is being dishonest. Marriage is a purely sociological institution. The religious aspect is applied by some. Not all. I'm not religious. And I'm married to me. My wife is religious. And she is married. Are we less married than you were? No, we're not.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
You can continue with the erroneous blanket statements, but it really proves nothing but your own bigotry.
Click to expand...

Ok, let me get this straight. You're accusing me of bigotry for wanting the same rights for everyone. While you think you are not a bigot, or acting out of fear, for wanting to grant rights to a select group of people because of characteristics they were born with.

Uhhh... ok. :doh

None of the statements in the Bible about homosexuality have been twisted. It is kind of hard to misinterpret "a man shall not lie with a man as he does with a woman," etc.
Click to expand...

You actually think you know what any biblical statements mean? Let's see now, this is a book written several thousands of years ago by scores of men and/or women, interpreted thousands of times, rewritten how many times and all this in a time when "an eye for an eye" was the law of the land and "spare the rod spoil the child" is interpreted as an excuse to beat children?

C'MON MANNNN!

You are obviously a liar
Click to expand...

I'm not an expert here but, this sounds like a personal attack to me. :roll:

Keep up with the lies.
Click to expand...

And yet another.

Your fear of gays and lesbians is as obvious as your lack of control when confronted with the reasons for your own bigotry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom