• 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.
Ikari said:
I don't really think it matters either. But so long as the Marriage License exists as a government issued and recognized contract, then all should have their right to contract recognized. In the end, I think it's all a big semantics game and I don't know why either side is so entrenched in their definitions. The best solution is to remove the marriage license all together, return marriage to a purely religious affair and let the churches worry about it.
Click to expand...
If the state does not define the legal interactions that have to do with marriage, then who?
 
Blackdog said:
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.
Click to expand...

two things
1 the problems you say exist does not, it wouldnt be forcing YOU to do anything at all , it also would change the defnition of marriage.

2 it WOULD how ever create a new problem and that discrimination against gays
 
Ikari said:
So thanks for admitting you are making it based upon religion. I don't know where your little indignant remark came from then since you seemed to know your opinion was based solely on your religious opinion. And since the Marriage License is property of State and not Church, your religious opinion has no functional, rightful, or legal bearing on the subject.
Click to expand...



so very true
 
Ikari said:
Exactly. It was enforced bigotries of the day, people thought it an abomination for interracial couples to get married. Just as some see it an abomination for gays to get married. The marriage license hasn't changed function, it remains a power used to enforce bigotries against a people.

You're not giving up any freedom, that's just propaganda on your part to try to excuse your behavior.
Click to expand...

again so very true, it is purely propaganda
 
Goobieman said:
If the state does not define the legal interactions that have to do with marriage, then who?
Click to expand...

The individuals making the contract. Everything which is legally recognized within the context of the marriage license can easily be made into another form of contract. One in which two people can agree to enter and gain certain legal powers and privileges in context with the other person. In essence, it separates out the "civil union" part and the "marriage" part of the marriage license. The marriage license can be abolished and marriage can then return to being a solely religious term. Any of the legal "benefits" which came with marriage can be handled through alternative contract.
 
Ikari said:
The individuals making the contract. Everything which is legally recognized within the context of the marriage license can easily be made into another form of contract. One in which two people can agree to enter and gain certain legal powers and privileges in context with the other person.
Click to expand...
Sounds like quite the boon for the lawyers.
Thing is, the state will still be involved, should there be an issue.

What about the interaction between the married and the state?
 
Wow 26 pages and still not ONE sound, reasonable, logical, non-bais, non-selfish, non-arrogant, hypercritical, non anti-american reason to "Stop" gay marriage.

Still interesting talks though but nothing that justifies the discrimination and denial of equal rights.

Ill keep checking the thread though for my research even though i have to through out the poll results now because of some tampering juvenile LOL
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
Sounds like quite the boon for the lawyers.
Thing is, the state will still be involved, should there be an issue.
Click to expand...

I actually don't see it any different than what we have now. Instead of the marriage license, there is a separate contract which has the same basic things in it that the marriage license would. Except it wouldn't be a marriage license, it would just be contract. Marriage would be defined through the specific churches and they can decide for themselves what they want.

Goobieman said:
What about the interaction between the married and the state?
Click to expand...

Such as? There are a lot of things from taxes to hospital visitation etc which are contained within the marriage license. I think that you can keep that all intact without having the marriage license.
 
Centrist77 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Typically, I agree with you on the semantics are BS front. However, as you can see on the last few pages, there is an importance between dividing a private ceremony with a legal contract.
 
Last edited:
Also just and FYI on the Poll tampering.

Before someone juvinile stacked the deck it was consistant at 80%. This is the 6th poll I have done and the lowest was at 79% and the highest was 93% that it is of course wrong to stop it if given the choice. It seems while MANY disagree with it that most are smart enough to know its none of their business and dont want to be oppressive and discriminate.
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
Typically, I agree with you on the semantics is BS front. However, as you can see on the last few pages, there is an importance between dividing a private ceremony with a legal contract.
Click to expand...

its not semantics its FACT sir :)

im not saying it isnt "important" only stating the fact that everything else is secondary to this debate because we are talking about voting it, stopping it and equal rights that alone negates everything else has meaningless especially in AMERICA where it would be discrimination.

Allowing gay marriage would do NOTHING in reality to those that view it different, nothing at all. THAT would be the semantics BS LMAO
 
Centrist77 said:
Wow 26 pages and still not ONE sound, reasonable, logical, non-bais, non-selfish, non-arrogant, hypercritical, non anti-american reason to "Stop" gay marriage.
Click to expand...

My reasoning is sound.

Sound:

1.free from injury, damage, defect, disease, etc.; in good condition; healthy; robust: a sound heart; a sound mind.
2.financially strong, secure, or reliable: a sound business; sound investments.
3.competent, sensible, or valid: sound judgment.
4.having no defect as to truth, justice, wisdom, or reason: sound advice.
5.of substantial or enduring character: sound moral values.
6.following in a systematic pattern without any apparent defect in logic: sound reasoning.

My reasoning is logical:

1.Of, relating to, in accordance with, or of the nature of logic.

2.Based on earlier or otherwise known statements, events, or conditions; reasonable: Rain was a logical expectation, given the time of year.

3.Reasoning or capable of reasoning in a clear and consistent manner.

Everyones reasoning is biased.

My reasoning is selfish as is everyone else's:

1.devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.

2.characterized by or manifesting concern or care only for oneself: selfish motives.

My reasoning is not arrogant.

1.making claims or pretensions to superior importance or rights; overbearingly assuming; insolently proud: an arrogant public official.

2.characterized by or proceeding from arrogance: arrogant claims.

It's funny that your argument actually fits the definition of arrogance! :lol:

My reasoning is most definitly not hypictitical:

1.a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

2.a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

As for non-American...

What about my comment is un-American? Is it because you know the founders intentions so well? You mentioned this in an earlier post. Well lets see...

1. the founding fathers kept slaves
2. they denied women, the poor and racial minorities equal citizenship
3. they tolerated and financed the massacre of the Native Americans
4. they occasionally engaged in piracy off the Eastern Seaboard

Thomas Jefferson wrote in Virginia law that homosexuals should be castrated.

So don't give me that un-American bull****.

Redefining marriage has nothing to do with any of the bull**** you spouted.
 
Last edited:
Centrist77 said:
two things
1 the problems you say exist does not, it wouldnt be forcing YOU to do anything at all , it also would change the defnition of marriage.
Click to expand...

No it would not. It would not be a marriage, it would be a civil union.

Sorry you are not getting any legitimacy from me.

Centrist77 said:
2 it WOULD how ever create a new problem and that discrimination against gays
Click to expand...

How would giving them equal protection under the law be discriminatory? That's bull**** and you know it.
 
Ikari said:
Christianity is not the only religion. Saying you were not Christian doesn't mean a damned thing.
Click to expand...

I was an atheist.

Ikari said:
And you could have other bigotries which you base your decision off of as well; so again, you've said nothing. What you have said is that you believe that your bigotries should be exploited through law at the expense of the rights of a specific group. That is a fact.
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with bigotry at all. It has to do with 2 male or females don't make a marriage no matter how you slice it. Never did and it never will.

You can believe what you want, but everyone has bigotry's of some type. I think yours are much worse than mine. ;)
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
It has nothing to do with bigotry at all. It has to do with 2 male or females don't make a marriage no matter how you slice it. Never did and it never will.
Click to expand...

That's merely according to you. There's no real reason to reject them from marriage in the modern era. Any logical consideration of the issue would yield that A) It's none of our business B) There's no reason to exclude same sex couples from marriage. Same sex couples would be functionally equivalent to any other marriage. The only real difference would be increased work for divorce lawyers.

Blackdog said:
You can believe what you want, but everyone has bigotry's of some type. I think yours are much worse than mine. ;)
Click to expand...

My bigotries are placed along lines of competence and ability. In that regard, I do not think it could be as bad as yours. In fact, it is much less a bigotry as much as it is elitism.
 
Ikari said:
That's merely according to you. There's no real reason to reject them from marriage in the modern era.
Click to expand...

According to you. I mean if opinions were relevant, this and every other country would look a whole lot different.

Ikari said:
Any logical consideration of the issue would yield that A) It's none of our business B) There's no reason to exclude same sex couples from marriage. Same sex couples would be functionally equivalent to any other marriage. The only real difference would be increased work for divorce lawyers.
Click to expand...

Again in your opinion. Biologically speaking it is unnecessary, period.

Ikari said:
My bigotries are placed along lines of competence and ability. In that regard, I do not think it could be as bad as yours. In fact, it is much less a bigotry as much as it is elitism.
Click to expand...

Really? Why don't you take the board out of your eye before trying to help me with my splinter.
 
Blackdog said:
According to you. I mean if opinions were relevant, this and every other country would look a whole lot different.
Click to expand...

According to any logical argument

Blackdog said:
Again in your opinion. Biologically speaking it is unnecessary, period.
Click to expand...

Biology is only a factor in reproduction, and that is no longer a concern. Else, we should also be denying infertile people the ability to marry as well. But our population is stable where is. And reproduction can be accomplished by varying means which do not necessarily require the inclusion of a man. Additionally, there are well more orphans than there are loving homes capable of adopting. So the whole "biology" aspect is null and void in the modern era.

Blackdog said:
Really? Why don't you take the board out of your eye before trying to help me with my splinter.
Click to expand...

I ain't got a board in my eye. I merely telling you how illogical your argument fundamentally is and how it can't be supported through reason. Instead it is fueled by bigotry against a certain sect of people.
 
Ikari said:
According to any logical argument
Click to expand...

The world is not logical and never will be as long a humans inhabit it.

Ikari said:
Biology is only a factor in reproduction, and that is no longer a concern. Else, we should also be denying infertile people the ability to marry as well. But our population is stable where is. And reproduction can be accomplished by varying means which do not necessarily require the inclusion of a man. Additionally, there are well more orphans than there are loving homes capable of adopting. So the whole "biology" aspect is null and void in the modern era.
Click to expand...

Again your opinion.

Ikari said:
I ain't got a board in my eye. I merely telling you how illogical your argument fundamentally is and how it can't be supported through reason. Instead it is fueled by bigotry against a certain sect of people.
Click to expand...

Saying you don't and then trying to give me a lecture on your morality is a perfect example. Thanks.
 
Blackdog said:
An irrelevant one.
Click to expand...

Nope. You brought up biology. I told you the facts of our population stability, the ability to have kids without a "father", and the vast number of orphans. So since it was you who brought up biology, it's not irrelevant. In fact, it had demonstrated what you claimed to have based your decision on to be completely irrelevant and no longer valid in the modern era.

Blackdog said:
No it's a fact.
Click to expand...

I'm not the one scraping together archaic arguments which hold no water in the modern age to keep discrimination against a particular sect of society intact.
 
Ikari said:
Nope. You brought up biology. I told you the facts of our population stability, the ability to have kids without a "father", and the vast number of orphans. So since it was you who brought up biology, it's not irrelevant. In fact, it had demonstrated what you claimed to have based your decision on to be completely irrelevant and no longer valid in the modern era.
Click to expand...

I brought it up for a completely different reason. You just decided it was for your reasoning. So again nope.

Ikari said:
I'm not the one scraping together archaic arguments which hold no water in the modern age to keep discrimination against a particular sect of society intact.
Click to expand...

What ever you say. :roll:
 
Blackdog said:
I brought it up for a completely different reason. You just decided it was for your reasoning. So again nope.
Click to expand...

You're being very inconsistent. You brought it up, I shot it down, and now you're desperately trying to make it seem like it was no big deal. Pathetic.
 
Ikari said:
You're being very inconsistent. You brought it up, I shot it down, and now you're desperately trying to make it seem like it was no big deal. Pathetic.
Click to expand...

I brought it up because it is the primary reasoning behind the make up of the family. You did not shoot down anything. What you have shown is why our society is crumbling around us.

When the importance of the family, or the mother and father are regulated to nothing by science, our society will slowly eat itself alive with moral decay etc. That is exactly what is happening now.
 
Blackdog said:
My reasoning is sound.

Sound:

1.free from injury, damage, defect, disease, etc.; in good condition; healthy; robust: a sound heart; a sound mind.
2.financially strong, secure, or reliable: a sound business; sound investments.
3.competent, sensible, or valid: sound judgment.
4.having no defect as to truth, justice, wisdom, or reason: sound advice.
5.of substantial or enduring character: sound moral values.
6.following in a systematic pattern without any apparent defect in logic: sound reasoning.

My reasoning is logical:

1.Of, relating to, in accordance with, or of the nature of logic.

2.Based on earlier or otherwise known statements, events, or conditions; reasonable: Rain was a logical expectation, given the time of year.

3.Reasoning or capable of reasoning in a clear and consistent manner.

Everyones reasoning is biased.

My reasoning is selfish as is everyone else's:

1.devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.

2.characterized by or manifesting concern or care only for oneself: selfish motives.

My reasoning is not arrogant.

1.making claims or pretensions to superior importance or rights; overbearingly assuming; insolently proud: an arrogant public official.

2.characterized by or proceeding from arrogance: arrogant claims.

It's funny that your argument actually fits the definition of arrogance! :lol:

My reasoning is most definitly not hypictitical:

1.a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

2.a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

As for non-American...

What about my comment is un-American? Is it because you know the founders intentions so well? You mentioned this in an earlier post. Well lets see...

1. the founding fathers kept slaves
2. they denied women, the poor and racial minorities equal citizenship
3. they tolerated and financed the massacre of the Native Americans
4. they occasionally engaged in piracy off the Eastern Seaboard

Thomas Jefferson wrote in Virginia law that homosexuals should be castrated.

So don't give me that un-American bull****.

Redefining marriage has nothing to do with any of the bull**** you spouted.
Click to expand...

LMAO wow what a waste of a post but its still not sound or logical and it is arrogant and it is also hypocritical but you believe what you want, I like how you provided proof in your very own post. Like I said Im still waiting for anybody to come up with one your not anybody else has yet no matter how much you call it BS lol
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom