• 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!

Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

  • No

    Votes: 99 79.2%
  • Yes, explain

    Votes: 26 20.8%

  • Total voters
    125
Status
Not open for further replies.
nice piece of reading here, Thanks you

Thank you. It is a pity I cannot say the same about your reply.

I still see nothing sound, reasonable, logical, non-bais, non-selfish, non-arrogant, hypercritical, non anti-american reason to "Stop" gay marriage

Ah, my post was "nice reading", but my concerns are unsound, unreasonable, biased, selfish, arrogant, hypocritical, and anti-american. :monkey


my favorite two parts are admitting that gay marriage has been around for over 1000 years and in rome but still proclaiming how rare it is. Only rare compared to the majority. and that you think that allowing gay marriage would be "forcing" a definition change LMAO it would "force" anything.

Any honest reading of history demonstrates that the overwhelming majority of cultures, in the overwhelming majority of time periods, did not officially permit or sanction gay marriage, including most of ancient Greece and most of the span of the Roman Empire. Historically it has indeed been extremely rare. I didn't say "utterly nonexistent", I said "extremely rare". I said that the historical norm has overwhelmingly been male-female marriage. Prove otherwise with appropriate sources before denigrating my statement.

As I noted, the burden of proof is on those who wish to redefine the existing institution.


Again you are clearly welcome to you opinion and i appreciate your post, its a good on IMO atleast writing wise but has a bunch of fallacy and fantasy in it. it also hasnt convinced me one bit that denying them marriage is also denying them equal rights. I also never buy into the fantasy that marriage is about children because tons of people married never have them nor is it required. That is a totally out dated assumption that has no barring in the real world today.

It is not my purpose to convince you of anything. It is your purpose to convince me, if you wish my support for your cause. So far, all you've done is denigrate my concerns as fantasy, fallacy, biased, selfish, arrogant, etc etc. Way to win friends and influence people, old chap. :roll:

as for the slope there is none except on the consenting adults part. I wouldnt care if people want to have polygamy either, its NONE OF MY BUSINESS what others do in marriage and relationships as long as its consensual.

also you cant NOT sue a church in this country based on religious beliefs so that is MEANINGLESS against gay marriage because the fact of the matter is STRAIGHT couples are already turned away by churches so the "potential" to sue already is there but not allowed by law. Allowing gay marriage wouldnt change this one bit.

So you think that the militant faction would stop with gay marriage and say "okay, we're good now, that's all." Oddly enough I haven't seen militant movements ever proclaiming that they've arrived at their goal and may now disband. Not to mention people sue over all manner of things... the Boyscout lawsuit comes to mind, an attempt to force a religious organization to accept something their convictions did not allow.

You make many assertions, but all I see are opinions and not evidence. Again, the burden of proof is on you.


lastly if we hold true to AMERICA there will never be laws that are against teaching gay is wrong that would change EVERYTHING. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion etc Thats just asinine.

I'm in my mid-forties. I have already seen astonishing changes in America in a mere four decades. Many things that were inconcievable four decades ago are now common. I am not reassured by your hyperbolic but unproven assertions.


is it illegal to teach women arent equal? minorities arent equal? interracial marriages are wrong now? of course not because this is america, not canada not some other country and that fantasy you are worried about isnt going to happen over gay marriage LMAO

Ah, yes, laughing at me is certainly an effective tool in convincing me that your side of the argument is valid, admirable, necessary, positive and that I should cease to oppose it at once. (/irony)

Your grasp of the art of persuasion leaves something to be desired. Did you wish to persuade people to support SSM, or simply to denigrate anyone who disagrees?

You exhibit many hyperpartisan characteristics for someone who claims the name of "centrist". :roll:

Many of peoples arguments were the same shallow, fearful, selfish and silly ones that people came up for for women and equal rights and interracial marriage. They held no barring then and they certainly hold none now.

Ah, so now I am shallow, fearful and selfish, and equated with racists and sexists.

Yes, your powers of persuasion are formidable. I have been utterly persuaded... that you completely lack the capacity to debate an issue honestly and openly without resorting to hackery, ad-hominem, hyperbole and insults.

Congratulations, you utterly failed to convince me to adopt a pro-SSM position. Well done.

I'm sure that your dignity, eloquence, well-sourced data, well-reasoned logic, and personal warmth was also impressive to any bystanders who might have been following the argument and considering which side to favor. Good show.


G.
 
Last edited:
Can I ask, of the people who are against gay marriage, is this because of the religious connotations of the word "marriage"? Or do you believe any form of union between people of the same sex is just wrong -quite aside from any religious leanings you may or may not have?

I'm just wondering how much of this is a religious thing and how much of it isn't...

Thanks

S

No it's not the religious connotations for me. As a Christian it is perceived as a sin. It would be like me supporting theft or lying as being proper.

As for the word marriage being associated with gay. I see it as nothing but wanting to legitimize something I see as illegitimate. As I have said two men or women do not make a marriage. It is a man and a woman.

I don't care if someone is gay or even wants to form a union with that person in a gay relationship. Even if I see it as wrong I will not persecute you for it, but I will not condone or support it.
 
Last edited:
Thank you. It is a pity I cannot say the same about your reply.



1.)Ah, my post was "nice reading", but my concerns are unsound, unreasonable, biased, selfish, arrogant, hypocritical, and anti-american. :monkey




2.)Any honest reading of history demonstrates that the overwhelming majority of cultures, in the overwhelming majority of time periods, did not officially permit or sanction gay marriage, including most of ancient Greece and most of the span of the Roman Empire. Historically it has indeed been extremely rare. I didn't say "utterly nonexistent", I said "extremely rare". I said that the historical norm has overwhelmingly been male-female marriage. Prove otherwise with appropriate sources before denigrating my statement.

3.) As I noted, the burden of proof is on those who wish to redefine the existing institution.




4.) It is not my purpose to convince you of anything. It is your purpose to convince me, if you wish my support for your cause. So far, all you've done is denigrate my concerns as fantasy, fallacy, biased, selfish, arrogant, etc etc. Way to win friends and influence people, old chap.



5.)So you think that the militant faction would stop with gay marriage and say "okay, we're good now, that's all." Oddly enough I haven't seen militant movements ever proclaiming that they've arrived at their goal and may now disband. Not to mention people sue over all manner of things... the Boyscout lawsuit comes to mind, an attempt to force a religious organization to accept something their convictions did not allow.

6.)You make many assertions, but all I see are opinions and not evidence. Again, the burden of proof is on you.




7.) I'm in my mid-forties. I have already seen astonishing changes in America in a mere four decades. Many things that were inconcievable four decades ago are now common. I am not reassured by your hyperbolic but unproven assertions.




8 Ah, yes, laughing at me is certainly an effective tool in convincing me that your side of the argument is valid, admirable, necessary, positive and that I should cease to oppose it at once. (/irony)

9.)Your grasp of the art of persuasion leaves something to be desired. Did you wish to persuade people to support SSM, or simply to denigrate anyone who disagrees?

10.) you exhibit many hyperpartisan characteristics for someone who claims the name of "centrist". :roll:



11.)Ah, so now I am shallow, fearful and selfish, and equated with racists and sexists.

Yes, your powers of persuasion are formidable. I have been utterly persuaded... that you completely lack the capacity to debate an issue honestly and openly without resorting to hackery, ad-hominem, hyperbole and insults.

Congratulations, you utterly failed to convince me to adopt a pro-SSM position. Well done.

G.

1.) you should read SLOWER next time without the over emotion. I didnt say your CONCERNS were all that stuff in relation to what you believe, they are fine that way you are allowed to be concerned with what ever you want sir BUT when it comes to STOPPING it yes they are all the aforementioned. :) See OP for further understanding

2&3.) I have no burden of anything, it in fact existed for over 1000 years so IM not redefining anything LMAO it DID existed so the definition of MAN WOMEN is fallacy Or elective in believing pick one. lol

4.) its my job to convince you? why its my poll and question LOL and you have in facted stated some fantasy and fallies no changing that deny if you wish but facts remain the same. Also you are still not understanding which parts im am calling selfish etc your generalizing and doing it wrong ;)

5.) "militant faction" LMAO wat a joke are you imlying that ONLY militants want gay marriage hahahaha because if not this is another meaningless fantasy of your doom and gloom type of worry and future. Guess we should never change anything because the "militant faction" will never stop. Lets do nothing then forever. lol

6.) really? pot meet kettle then, I have no burden of proof. Gay marriage existed for over 1000 years, fact. Gays not being allowed to marry is denying them equal rights, fact.

7.) what unproven assertions? like what? that we will NOT lose our freedom of religion and speech because of gay rights like in your fantasy world? Rest assured if we lose those two things it will have NOTHING to do ith gay marrige LMAO yes I call that a fallacy because nothing will change to effect those things, if we are going to lose them it will happen with or without gay marriage because it does nothing to add to the case of removing them LOL

8 & 9.) dont say something so silly and i wont laugh, i simply used your poor example against you to show you theres no logic behind it. Again have no desire to persuade you at all in any believes etc. this is my thread and poll so its your job to convince me why you think personally you have the right to STOP it. Not asking about voting not asking about believing thinking it wrong. Convince me that you have the right to tell two other consenting adults who they can and cant marry seems you misunderstanding the whole point or you are trying to spin it since you cant defend it. You claimed something might happened that is down right silly because it has ZERO basis and I gave you examples but yet some how you tell me when i use examples have no basis? interesting?

10.) really? how do you figure that? my way EVERYBODY gets to marry and do what THEY want and its EQUAL and NO ONE one is discriminated against. The other way only SOME groups of people get to do what they want and the others ARE discriminated against. Seems perfectly centrist to me. Explain to me how my way is HYPER-partiasn but the other way is bipartisan LMAO

11.) again you should open mouth insert foot cause you are using emotion not logic. My last statement was in general, notice my EXACT statement was "MANY of peoples arguments" Aka MEANING (not all) LOL and certainly never said YOU.

nobody said YOU are racist sexist etc LMAO Mr dramatic. I certainly didnt by any stretch of the imagination

and again lastly i wasnt trying to convince you of anything but for some reason reality seems to escape you LOL

congratulations to you and your over barring emotions, your spin machine and misunderstanding or just about everything

thanks for admitting i was open and honest maybe next time you will do the same ;) thanks for playing
 
No it's not the religious connotations for me. As a Christian it is perceived as a sin. It would be like me supporting theft or lying as being proper.

As for the word marriage being associated with gay. I see it as nothing but wanting to legitimize something I see as illegitimate. As I have said two men or women do not make a marriage. It is a man and a woman.

I don't care if someone is gay or even wants to form a union with that person in a gay relationship. Even if I see it as wrong I will not persecute you for it, but I will not condone or support it.

SO just to be clear are you saying if there was a vote you would just not vote on the subject? and its because while you believe in your beliefs you understand that in america your beliefs arent right for all and shouldnt be opposed on anyone.

im i "guessing" right or full of it lol
 
1.) And that wouldn’t change it, they can still hold it sacred no matter what others do. so no need to change the name. There’s 100 of things religion holds sacred that others don’t but they don’t change do they? only to the person who doesn’t share those beliefs. That’s why I feel its a BS issue with the word sacred. Only in the GAY case is it sacred all others no big deal.
I am confused as to what you are saying here...

As I understand it, some religions hold that marriage is between a man and a woman, no other options. Thus it would seem anything except that would not be considered sacred/acceptable.

Not just gay marriage.

2.) No you would NOT be legislating a legal (you mean religious, yes?) matter unless you are claiming we already are? You can get married WITHOUT religion and Religion can also deny you marriage RIGHT NOW. That wouldn’t change either
I find this statement confusing as well...

However, several things.

Yes, it could be argued that we are currently legislating a religious matter by involving legal financial unions and tax breaks with a religious union system.

Currently, a man and a woman (and man-man or woman-woman in some states?) can get "married" in the legal sense without religion, but religion cannot (contrary to what you say) deny you marriage. Any given religion can deny you marriage within that religion, but not in any legal way.

Obviously that wouldn't change, but I am saying that redefining the legal half of "marriage" by some other word, and then granting gays the option to take part, would most likely eliminate a portion of the opposition to it...by sidestepping the thing.

Obviously, any religion could then (and can now) marry two persons of the same sex according to the procedures of their religion.

Only difference would be the freakin' word, really, but that's important to some...probably even the majority.

The gay couple could call it marriage, but the persons who don't accept it as such wouldn't have to recognize it as such legally - as opposed to the current idea of simply extending the system.

3.) While I agree "resistance" might be removed some, there shouldn’t be resistance in the first place, and where resistance would get moved others would want to know why they are being discriminated against and they have to use a different name when it is the same thing.
Why shouldn't there be resistance? If someone believes the gay marriage is against the will of (insert entity here), who am I to disagree with them?

Obviously, no matter what is done there will be some who want laws actually banning gays from getting married. But that's unconstitutional. There's a reason we have a constitution, and it’s to prevent people from doing such things.

4.) again nothing would change clinging to the word marriage is just an excuse IMO because of the countless OTHER things people don’t cling to religiously. Allowing gay marriage changes nothing accept gives equal rights to those currently being denied them
If the wish of gay couples is only for equal rights, than changing the name of a legal union shouldn't matter in the least to them. They can still get married at a church that accepts such.

Demanding that it be called marriage in the law is completely pointless, from my viewpoint, as is calling it any other term.

But it would probably eliminate a majority of the opposition, as well as removing much of the anger. What's wrong with that?


5.) I know what you are saying but there’s no need because there isn’t a separate one right now?
No idea what you are saying here...You appear to be contradicting yourself.

If what you are saying is what I think you are saying…

Then yes, there are currently two separate “marriage” parts, the religious and the legal.

Renaming the legal part to something else seems a fairly simple and easy measure.

6.) Rights are NOT being preserved right now, they are being denied, allowing gay marriage would preserve them not the other way around.
You can't preserve something by allowing it unless it was previously allowed and then banned, and depending on your religious views, there is or is not a "right" to gay marriage.
Further, gay marriage is not being denied, only the right to legal gay marriage is being denied.

As to the preservation of rights that I mentioned, changing the legal word usage before extending the system to gays would preserve the right for people who believe a certain way to continue in their non-acceptance of gay marriage as valid.
Now, obviously they would still have that right, but enshrining it in the law would mean the had to acknowledge it legally. Which would cause issues…

7.) Oh? I never heard of that definition of a centrist, at least not in the group I belong to that made me decide to be one. They aren’t people with NO opinions they are people that understand that there’s two sides to everything the world is grey and what is best for them might not be best for others. They want most if not all people to have happiness, and equal rights. They understand that ONE decision may need special rules to work right and can’t not (double negatives worry MS word) always be a blanket fix. But again thanks for explaining I get it now.

Like you I am also a leaner but with center roots. It funny because it get reinforced all the time in debates because people say I’m a lefty when talking about Gay rights, healthcare abortion but I’m a righty when talking about Guns, military etc

Good talks BTW
Interesting, indeed.
 
Last edited:
1.) you should read SLOWER next time without the over emotion. I didnt say your CONCERNS were all that stuff in relation to what you believe, they are fine that way you are allowed to be concerned with what ever you want sir BUT when it comes to STOPPING it yes they are all the aforementioned. See OP for further understanding

2&3.) I have no burden of anything, it in fact existed for over 1000 years so IM not redefining anything LMAO it DID existed so the definition of MAN WOMEN is fallacy Or elective in believing pick one. lol

4.) its my job to convince you? why its my poll and question LOL and you have in facted stated some fantasy and fallies no changing that deny if you wish but facts remain the same. Also you are still not understanding which parts im am calling selfish etc your generalizing and doing it wrong ;)

5.) "militant faction" LMAO wat a joke are you imlying that ONLY militants want gay marriage hahahaha because if not this is another meaningless fantasy of your doom and gloom type of worry and future. Guess we should never change anything because the "militant faction" will never stop. Lets do nothing then forever. lol

6.) really? pot meet kettle then, I have no burden of proof. Gay marriage existed for over 1000 years, fact. Gays not being allowed to marry is denying them equal rights, fact.

7.) what unproven assertions? like what? that we will NOT lose our freedom of religion and speech because of gay rights like in your fantasy world? Rest assured if we lose those two things it will have NOTHING to do ith gay marrige LMAO yes I call that a fallacy because nothing will change to effect those things, if we are going to lose them it will happen with or without gay marriage because it does nothing to add to the case of removing them LOL

8 & 9.) dont say something so silly and i wont laugh, i simply used your poor example against you to show you theres no logic behind it. Again have no desire to persuade you at all in any believes etc. this is my thread and poll so its your job to convince me why you think personally you have the right to STOP it. Not asking about voting not asking about believing thinking it wrong. Convince me that you have the right to tell two other consenting adults who they can and cant marry seems you misunderstanding the whole point or you are trying to spin it since you cant defend it. You claimed something might happened that is down right silly because it has ZERO basis and I gave you examples but yet some how you tell me when i use examples have no basis? interesting?

10.) really? how do you figure that? my way EVERYBODY gets to marry and do what THEY want and its EQUAL and NO ONE one is discriminated against. The other way only SOME groups of people get to do what they want and the others ARE discriminated against. Seems perfectly centrist to me. Explain to me how my way is HYPER-partiasn but the other way is bipartisan LMAO

11.) again you should open mouth insert foot cause you are using emotion not logic. My last statement was in general, notice my EXACT statement was "MANY of peoples arguments" Aka MEANING (not all) LOL and certainly never said YOU.

nobody said YOU are racist sexist etc LMAO Mr dramatic. I certainly didnt by any stretch of the imagination

and again lastly i wasnt trying to convince you of anything but for some reason reality seems to escape you LOL

congratulations to you and your over barring emotions, your spin machine and misunderstanding or just about everything

thanks for admitting i was open and honest maybe next time you will do the same ;) thanks for playing


Quantity of verbage is no substitute for quality. :bs

No you didn't directly say I was unreasonable, arrogant and anti-american...you simply attached those labels to my position and imputed them to me by implication. Nice try, no cigar.

If you think I attached any particular emotional content to our exchange, you are mistaken. That would mean your opinion mattered to me... it doesn't, as you've already demonstrated you aren't here for open and honest debate, but merely to denigrate anyone who doesn't agree with you. It isn't like I haven't seen this kind of behavior dozens of times on this board. :coffeepap

I was simply trying to determine whether you were worth bothering with; the answer is no, and I will waste no further effort on you. :2wave:
 
SO just to be clear are you saying if there was a vote you would just not vote on the subject? and its because while you believe in your beliefs you understand that in america your beliefs arent right for all and shouldnt be opposed on anyone.

im i "guessing" right or full of it lol

Not full of it, but totaly missed what I was saying.

"I see it as nothing but wanting to legitimize something I see as illegitimate." - Blackdog

Even if I was not a Christian, I would still vote against gay marriage. I would vote yes for civil unions recognized by the federal government. I would vote yes to get government out of marriage completely.
 
1.)I am confused as to what you are saying here...

As I understand it, some religions hold that marriage is between a man and a woman, no other options. Thus it would seem anything except that would not be considered sacred/acceptable.

Not just gay marriage.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
2.)I find this statement confusing as well...

However, several things.

Yes, it could be argued that we are currently legislating a religious matter by involving legal financial unions and tax breaks with a religious union system.

Currently, a man and a woman (and man-man or woman-woman in some states?) can get "married" in the legal sense without religion, but religion cannot (contrary to what you say) deny you marriage. Any given religion can deny you marriage within that religion, but not in any legal way.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

3.)Obviously that wouldn't change, but I am saying that redefining the legal half of "marriage" by some other word, and then granting gays the option to take part, would most likely eliminate a portion of the opposition to it...by sidestepping the thing.


Obviously, any religion could then (and can now) marry two persons of the same sex according to the procedures of their religion.

Only difference would be the freakin' word, really, but that's important to some...probably even the majority.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

4.) The gay couple could call it marriage, but the persons who don't accept it as such wouldn't have to recognize it as such legally - as opposed to the current idea of simply extending the system.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

5.) Why shouldn't there be resistance? If someone believes the gay marriage is against the will of (insert entity here), who am I to disagree with them?
------------------------------------------------------------
6.)Obviously, no matter what is done there will be some who want laws actually banning gays from getting married. But that's unconstitutional. There's a reason we have a constitution, and it’s to prevent people from doing such things.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
7.) If the wish of gay couples is only for equal rights, than changing the name of a legal union shouldn't matter in the least to them. They can still get married at a church that accepts such.

Demanding that it be called marriage in the law is completely pointless, from my viewpoint, as is calling it any other term.

But it would probably eliminate a majority of the opposition, as well as removing much of the anger. What's wrong with that?
------------------------------------------------------------------------


8.) No idea what you are saying here...You appear to be contradicting yourself.

If what you are saying is what I think you are saying…

Then yes, there are currently two separate “marriage” parts, the religious and the legal.

Renaming the legal part to something else seems a fairly simple and easy measure.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

9.) You can't preserve something by allowing it unless it was previously allowed and then banned, and depending on your religious views, there is or is not a "right" to gay marriage.
Further, gay marriage is not being denied, only the right to legal gay marriage is being denied.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

10.) As to the preservation of rights that I mentioned, changing the legal word usage before extending the system to gays would preserve the right for people who believe a certain way to continue in their non-acceptance of gay marriage as valid.
Now, obviously they would still have that right, but enshrining it in the law would mean the had to acknowledge it legally. Which would cause issues…

Interesting, indeed.

1.) yes some religions do define it that way and they still would be able too. The law would NOT change the "religious" definition of anything therefore it would STILL be sacred to the people it currently is.

2.) sorry religion can in fact DENY you marriage under their religion as you say, a church can choose not to marry ANYBODY they dont want to and the law wouldnt change that. I have a friend that had to go to 3 churches before he could get married and then only if he took classes and converted. There was nothing he could legally do about because the church reserves that right based on religion.

3.) Again i get what you are saying but it shouldnt be needed, no religion is trying to stop other marriages not mbased on their religion so why do it in this case. Changing the word sidesteps equal rights IMO

4.) again they dont have to accept it except legally and all religions already have to do that for many things because this is AMERICA first. Legal trumps religion on certain things. For example you are a sinner by some religions if you drink, have premartial sex or masturbate. But those things arent illegal right? Some religions dont want you to eat meat at certain time, food places are still open? right

5.) like i said in the OP its fine to believe that but once you try to stop it IMO its wrong because you are in fact forcing your religious beliefs on others and acting like you are not a hypocrite (not really YOU but you know what i mean ;) )

6.) I agree 100% it is unconstitutional and it will eventually change because we get smarted as time goes on certain things, mainly discrimination

7.) I agree to a point but would have no argument for gays who said calling it something different is still discrimination. Now this example is just humor and stretching but just giving an example for you to see. Ok mr obama you can be president but were gonna call you something else instead, you just get all the rules or president but we cant call you that. Now when somebody else fully whit becomes president we will go back to using the "word" president. Again yes i know thats a crazy example but im just saying it makes it easy to see why some find that offensive oppressive and discriminatory

so thats what i see gays thinkin is wrong with that

8.) What im saying is that right now there is only ONE type of marriage, the LEGAL. The religion is secondary and isnt needed. SO currently they arent separate and still called marriage with or with out religion so nothing would change.

9.) but there is a right to marry and equality and that isnt being preserved. I do understand what you are saying that since it wasnt allowed before than preserve is the wrong word but equality and marriage is allowed and is being denied to a certain group

10.) just dont see how keeping the word the same effect them at all. Right now I could marry anybody I want with out religion and they dont have to accept it except legally and thats fine. No need to change that just because it gay marriage,
 
Quantity of verbage is no substitute for quality. :bs

No you didn't directly say I was unreasonable, arrogant and anti-american...you simply attached those labels to my position and imputed them to me by implication. Nice try, no cigar.

If you think I attached any particular emotional content to our exchange, you are mistaken. That would mean your opinion mattered to me... it doesn't, as you've already demonstrated you aren't here for open and honest debate, but merely to denigrate anyone who doesn't agree with you. It isn't like I haven't seen this kind of behavior dozens of times on this board. :coffeepap

I was simply trying to determine whether you were worth bothering with; the answer is no, and I will waste no further effort on you. :2wave:

translation: "I cant defend what i was saying or answer your questions so ill just act like im writing you off and try to devalue your points, ill even lie and say you arent here for honest debate to make myself look better and try to discredit you"

well you failed sir but thats fine with me :) LMAO
 
Not full of it, but totaly missed what I was saying.

"I see it as nothing but wanting to legitimize something I see as illegitimate." - Blackdog

Even if I was not a Christian, I would still vote against gay marriage. I would vote yes for civil unions recognized by the federal government. I would vote yes to get government out of marriage completely.

so you would vote no to stop equal marriage. Why do you think that is your right to tell two consenting adults who they can marry?

why does the term marriage bother you?

Government needs to be in marriage IMO cant change that and also it is a government thing first and religious secondary anyway.
 
currently civil unions do not have the same rights so thats one thing "bad" with it
secondly marriages has NOTHING to do with private institutions unless the people getting married want it to. A magistrate, judge, or even somebody with a license can marry people.

I should've been more clear. I support civil unions with the same legal rights as marriage as it's currently defined, and then leaving marriage to private institutions.
 
I should've been more clear. I support civil unions with the same legal rights as marriage as it's currently defined, and then leaving marriage to private institutions.

Oh, ok thanks

Marriage is nothing more than a legal contract. Anything else is secondary so why do you feel the need to hange the name?

you dont think thats discrimination by changing the name?
 
dodge the question again, its typical for you ;)

I answered it directly.

I think I have the right to tell some couple if they can or can not marry when they treat me as though I have that authority.

If you don't think I have any right to tell you "no", then don't ask.
 
so you would vote no to stop equal marriage. Why do you think that is your right to tell two consenting adults who they can marry?

It is their right to tell me I can't smoke weed legally. It is their right to tell me I can't drive faster than the speed limit. Just like people tell me I can't marry more than one person.

Because it is my responsibility to myself and my country to follow MY conscience and not yours or anyone else's.

why does the term marriage bother you?

The term "marriage" does not bother me one bit.

Government needs to be in marriage IMO cant change that and also it is a government thing first and religious secondary anyway.

Maybe for you, not in my life. Secular government or not, Christ comes first, then my family and my country. Government is that last thing on my list.
 
1.) It is their right to tell me I can't smoke weed legally. It is their right to tell me I can't drive faster than the speed limit. Just like people tell me I can't marry more than one person.

2.)Because it is my responsibility to myself and my country to follow MY conscience and not yours or anyone else's.



4.)The term "marriage" does not bother me one bit.



3.)Maybe for you, not in my life. Secular government or not, Christ comes first, then my family and my country. Government is that last thing on my list.

1.) uhm, your examples arent even CLOSE to the same.
except the more than one person thing, I also believe no one should be able to tell you that, because its none of my business. Has far as weed, speeding etc. NOBODY can do that without special reason so thats not discrimination in its real meaning. In gay marriage EVERYBODY can get married "except" a certain group.

2.)and no its not your responsibility to follow your conscience its your responsibility to follow and hold your COUNTRY'S conscience. WOuld you vote to outlaw premarital sex, masturbation, eating meat based on your conscience or religion even though logical theres no reason for all to follow? LOL
Sorry you dont even believe that for one second, other wise you would think your country should follow your religion to the tee because that would be your conscience right? where would you draw the line. and it its such a religous thing you should be all about not smoking pot?

3.)NO, not just for me its a FACT that government is first in the meaning of marriage because of the logistics. Its real meaning noticed by state and government which is what this debate is about its not about anything else so dont try to change it. If it wasnt about government first than ANYBODY can alrady get married now under their OWN terms, its about having EQUAL terms nice try.

in general for me its also family first then government but if the decision i am making is for my government I realize that my opinion nothing more than that and shouldnt be forced on others and i have to vote what i think is best fair and equal for all. Discrimination doesnt fall under that blaket for me

4.) it seems to bother you if gays use it, do i have that wrong?
 
Last edited:
1.) uhm, your examples arent even CLOSE to the same.

How so? I own my own body correct? Who is the state to tell me what I can and cannot put into it? Who is the state to tell me I cannot marry more than one person? You want gay marriage, why can't I marry more then one woman?

Sorry that is EXACTLY the same thing.

No one said the laws are fair to everyone.

except the more than one person thing, I also believe no one should be able to tell you that, because its none of my business.

And that is your opinion, does not make it right or wrong. You are free to try and change it under our system of law.

Has far as weed, speeding etc. NOBODY can do that without special reason so thats not discrimination in its real meaning. In gay marriage EVERYBODY can get married "except" a certain group.

That's to bad. If you don't like it gather enough people or political clout to change it. You can also take it to court.

Everyone can get married, to one man or one woman, period. So no, does not fly.

2.)and no its not your responsibility to follow your conscience its your responsibility to follow and hold your COUNTRY'S conscience.

Please point out where in the law or Constitution it states that I cannot vote my conscience? Please point out where the state has a right to force me to vote the way they want me to?

WOuld you vote to outlaw premarital sex, masturbation, eating meat based on your conscience or religion even though logical theres no reason for all to follow? LOL

Yes I would vote, how I voted depends on the issue and how I perceive it. As is the right of every American citizen.

Sorry you dont even believe that for one second, other wise you would think your country should follow your religion to the tee because that would be your conscience right? where would you draw the line. and it its such a religous thing you should be all about not smoking pot?

I don't want a theocracy, so you are wrong.

Now you are just making nonsensical rants.

3.)NO, not just for me its a FACT that government is first in the meaning of marriage because of the logistics. Its real meaning noticed by state and government which is what this debate is about its not about anything else so dont try to change it. If it wasnt about government first than ANYBODY can alrady get married now under their OWN terms, its about having EQUAL terms nice try.

Please take your time and type slowly. You are making no sense at all.

About all I can make out is you are saying I am trying to change the conversation. This by answering YOUR questions? :lol:

in general for me its also family first then government but if the decision i am making is for my government I realize that my opinion nothing more than that and shouldnt be forced on others and i have to vote what i think is best fair and equal for all. Discrimination doesnt fall under that blaket for me

Then you are a government slave.

Welcome to the machine. ;)

PS I am done with you. You have no idea or don't want to understand my positon, and you are just spouting the same nonsense over and over at this point.

You are not going to change my mind, don't even know why you are bothering. You asked a question in the poll and I answered it. We batted it around and I am done.

Have a good night and rest assured I am against it more now than ever. Good job!
 
Last edited:
1.)How so? I own my own body correct? Who is the state to tell me what I can and cannot put into it? Who is the state to tell me I cannot marry more than one person? You want gay marriage, why can't I marry more then one woman?

Sorry that is EXACTLY the same thing.

No one said the laws are fair to everyone.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

2.)And that is your opinion, does not make it right or wrong. You are free to try and change it under our system of law.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

3.)That's to bad. If you don't like it gather enough people or political clout to change it. You can also take it to court.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

4.)Everyone can get married, to one man or one woman, period. So no, does not fly.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

5.)Please point out where in the law or Constitution it states that I cannot vote my conscience? Please point out where the state has a right to force me to vote the way they want me to?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

6.) Yes I would vote, how I voted depends on the issue and how I perceive it. As is the right of every American citizen.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

7.) I don't want a theocracy, so you are wrong.

Now you are just making nonsensical rants.


-------------------------------------------------------------------
8.)Please take your time and type slowly. You are making no sense at all.

About all I can make out is you are saying I am trying to change the conversation. This by answering YOUR questions? :lol:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

9.)Then you are a government slave.

Welcome to the machine. ;)

1.)are you not reading?
I said I agree about the marry one person thing that IS the same, i also think that is wrong but your other examples are NOT the same because they apply to everyone. LOL its not even close by any stretch of the imagination.

2 and 3.) meaningless to the debate but you are right

4. yes that is true and in this case its also discrimination because it doesn't allow gays to do what they want period.

5.) wat are you talking about LMAO who said it was LAW lol YOU said its your responsibility and I said your responsibility should be to vote whats best for the conscience of the country not just yours nor did i say the state can make you vote a certain way ?????

6.) well dont dodge the questions, i didnt just ask if you would simply vote lol answer them each. would you OUTLAW, based on your religion" masturbation, premarital sex, sex without the intent to conceive and eating meat during certain times

7.) only a rant cause you have no answer. Expalin yourself then, simple enough. so your conscience is not based on religion? whats it based on then, its only based on religion when it come to gay marriage is that what you are saying?

8.) not my fault you have comprehension problems. You stated marriage isnt about goverment but in fact it is. My argument here, i started the thread, is for gay marriage is it right to stop it. This is referring to GOVERNMENT marriage. You say that meaning is only mine, well you are wrong its everybody's because of the subject at hand. If we arent talking about government marriage then there would be no "vote" and it wouldnt matter if it was outlawed LMAO

Point being in this case, this debate marriage is all about government and everything else is secondary.

9.
) not a government slave i just love my country and understand the Constitution, bill of rights, life liberty and the pursuit happiness and what the forefathers wanted. EQUALITY AND FREEDOM

Im just not selfish, arrogant and pompous enough to believe that I get to tell two consenting adults who they can marry, id feel like an two faced hypocrite of an american

also when I vote on anything, I vote that way because i understand it isnt "all about me" and my beliefs arent to be forced on others especially based on religion. I need to make a decision that helps the idea of what my country is.

10.) the machine is rusty and needs oiled, the yellow brick road is that way
============> :mrgreen:
 
PS I am done with you. You have no idea or don't want to understand my positon, and you are just spouting the same nonsense over and over at this point.

You are not going to change my mind, don't even know why you are bothering. You asked a question in the poll and I answered it. We batted it around and I am done.

Have a good night and rest assured I am against it more now than ever. Good job![/QUOTE]

awwww my poor feelings are hurt.

Your right though. i dont understand how you look in the mirror and tell yourself "I" have the right to tell two consenting adults who they can marry and thats fair and equal. LMAO and I probably never will but im trying just cant find any logic in it that doesnt seem totally selfish

also rest assured yourself i most certainly am not trying to change your mind or anybody elses, you made the same mistake someone else did, thats not my goal my goal was for you or ANYONE to show me logic in stopping it based on america. You and a couple others have failed. no biggie.

also it bother "me" none that "you" are even MORE selfish and oppressive and hypocritical now im just happy im not that way and that in general america isnt either.

nite :)
 
I don't care if someone is gay or even wants to form a union with that person in a gay relationship. Even if I see it as wrong I will not persecute you for it, but I will not condone or support it.

Hi Blackdog,

Thanks for your reply. I understand what you're saying. I think the theft case is a good analogy though personally its not one I agree with.

If you could, would you actively work to prevent gay people from having the same legal rights as hetrosexual couples? For example, in terms of inheritance, pensions and hospital visitation rights for example?

Thanks

S
 
Hi Blackdog,

Thanks for your reply. I understand what you're saying. I think the theft case is a good analogy though personally its not one I agree with.

If you could, would you actively work to prevent gay people from having the same legal rights as hetrosexual couples? For example, in terms of inheritance, pensions and hospital visitation rights for example?

Thanks

S

That right doesn't exist, for anyone. It's rumor which has been repeated so many times that people believe it, but there is no actual law establishing hospital visitation. That issue is dealt with by the specific hospital, and the typical example is that anyone is allowed during visitation hours. Also, I had non relatives stay with me when I spent a week in the hospital as a teen, so I know first hand that you don't have to be family.

Also, I'm not married to my mother but I'm inheriting everything she has when she passes. There is no law helping me out there, either, because if she didn't have a will then my oldest sister would have legal favor under CA law. So obviously gays don't need 'marriage' to take care of that, either.
 
Last edited:
Hi Blackdog,

Thanks for your reply. I understand what you're saying. I think the theft case is a good analogy though personally its not one I agree with.

Everyone is different, so it is cool. :)

If you could, would you actively work to prevent gay people from having the same legal rights as hetrosexual couples? For example, in terms of inheritance, pensions and hospital visitation rights for example?

Thanks

S

No. As I mentioned earlier I think gay couples should have the same legal benefits under the law. We can do this without changing the definition of marriage or me being forced to support something I see as wrong.

Civil Unions recognized by the federal government would solve that problem.
 
They can have civil unions or get the government out of the marriage business altogether.

Two men or women do not make a marriage. They should however have all the rights and privileges of a married couple no matter what it is called.

My reasons for being against gay marriage is purely religious and semantics.

It is not open for debate. It will immediately turn this thread into a religious bashing session. Not interested in that.

You may personally believe it to be religious, but as soon as the Marriage License came into existence; marriage left the realm of religion and entered the realm of the State.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom