• 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.
Yes, and adopted children deserve to be in a stable home with a mother and father, not with two dads or moms.

They deserve loving and supportive care givers, that is what they deserve. A couple of the best parents that I know are gay men and their son is hetero and they are happy simply because they have a son and they are a loving family...

The hetero marriages that can't create families aren't because it's naturally impossible, but because there is fertility issues with the man or woman.

Fertility issues ARE naturally impossible
 
sorry guys and girls gotta pick up my daughter from dance but ill be back

good talks :)
 
Yes, and adopted children deserve to be in a stable home with a mother and father, not with two dads or moms.
Who says? Does Christianity say this too? That's mostly opinion.

You know, single parents adopt children and raise them successfully.

Personally I know of one gay couple who have a stable family with two kids, I'm sure there are others. But that's my opinion, haven't found any facts to back that up yet.
 
I think it's perfectly fine to stop gay marriage and I would personally vote to prevent homosexual marriages (my state has already legally defined by a vote that marriage is only between one man and one woman).
1. Because of my religious convictions I believe homosexuality is a sin

1st Amendment prevents the government from favoring one religion over another. If the law is passed on religious then it is favoring one religious belief over another, thus unconstitutional

2. Homosexual marriages cannot create families

Neither can infertile couples. What about the elderly? Besides with modern medicine and adoption a same sex couple can form a family as well as a heterosexual one.




Others have already polled Americans on the issue. [url[http://www.gallup.com/poll/118378/majority-americans-continue-oppose-gay-marriage.aspx[/url]
57% oppose gay marriage and 40% support it according to a gallup poll. Plus if you look at state elections you will see that the majority within states that had the issue voted on didn't support gay marriage either. I wouldn't really take candid internet polls as research.

Majorities do not make something correct.

Actually I am part of the majority that oppose homosexual marriages. I also believe my reasons for opposing it are valid and logical. Wouldn't it be discrimination against those that don't support it to force them to extend marital rights to a union that they hold as being sinful?

By this logic the majority of Whites that supported Jim Crow were being discriminated against when it was overturned.
 
1st Amendment prevents the government from favoring one religion over another. If the law is passed on religious then it is favoring one religious belief over another, thus unconstitutional

The law was passed by a simple vote of the people. The state Constitution was amended to state what marriage is. Had nothing to do with being a religious law or supporting any particular religion in this case and any of the others I know of.

By this logic the majority of Whites that supported Jim Crow were being discriminated against when it was overturned.

Discrimination' is nothing more than a sociological construct solely by class or category. Discrimination is the actual behavior toward another group.

So yes it would be, and it was.

Somehow discrimination has come to be a derogatory term when it is not.

Females are discriminated against in the military for certain jobs. People are discriminated against because of physical ability. People are discriminated against because of a lack of education.

None of these are necessarily wrong or evil. It is just a term meaning denied by class or category.
 
Last edited:
Who says? Does Christianity say this too? That's mostly opinion.

No. It's a fact children do better with a mother and a father.

You know, single parents adopt children and raise them successfully.

Yes they do. Most of us are not against a gay couple adopting or having the same rights, it's not a marriage. It is a civil union recognized by the state, and the state alone.

Personally I know of one gay couple who have a stable family with two kids, I'm sure there are others. But that's my opinion, haven't found any facts to back that up yet.

And I know plenty of gay couples that don't. Or have switched partners so many times it is confusing.

Anecdotal evidence proves nothing.
 
They deserve loving and supportive care givers, that is what they deserve. A couple of the best parents that I know are gay men and their son is hetero and they are happy simply because they have a son and they are a loving family...

So what? I have a happy family that has a mother and a father.

So what is your point? You know a happy gay couple? So do I, and hundreds of happy hetero couples.

Fertility issues ARE naturally impossible

I don't understand?
 
The law was passed by a simple vote of the people. The state Constitution was amended to state what marriage is. Had nothing to do with being a religious law or supporting any particular religion in this case and any of the others I know of.

The original ban was there on religious grounds

Discrimination' is nothing more than a sociological construct solely by class or category. Discrimination is the actual behavior toward another group.

So yes it would be, and it was.

Somehow discrimination has come to be a derogatory term when it is not.

Females are discriminated against in the military for certain jobs. People are discriminated against because of physical ability. People are discriminated against because of a lack of education.

None of these are necessarily wrong or evil. It is just a term meaning denied by class or category.

Yes, however, arbitrary discrimination is wrong. For what reason is this distinction not arbitrary?
 
The original ban was there on religious grounds

Could you post some evidence?

I don't know so I am asking.

Yes, however, arbitrary discrimination is wrong. For what reason is this distinction not arbitrary?

Depends on who you ask I would think.

I mean I don't think it's arbitrary at all in the case of gay marriage. I am certain other people who disagree think it is.
 
Could you post some evidence?

I don't know so I am asking.

I don't really feel like digging through links so I'll just concede that point for now. As I've said, just because, a majority supports a bill, doesn't make it the right decision.

Depends on who you ask I would think.

I'd like to hear your answer.

I mean I don't think it's arbitrary at all in the case of gay marriage. I am certain other people who disagree think it is.

Why isn't it? Also, as I've asked before how does consenting adults negatively affect you or society as a whole?
 
Yes they do. Most of us are not against a gay couple adopting or having the same rights, it's not a marriage. It is a civil union recognized by the state, and the state alone.

I think I found the core of our disagreement here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd say we agree that both Heterosexual and Homosexual should have the same legal rights. We just disagree is on the actual marriage part. My proposal is that both groups get the same legal rights, we call them civil unions, and we leave the marriage stuff to private institutions who can discriminate as they see fit.
 
No. It's a fact children do better with a mother and a father.
Okay first of all, where is that said?

Second, regardless of that question, it's essentially up to the couple (whether straight or gay) and the compatibility of the child that determines whether a child is adopted, right?

Therefore, whatever happens, its essentially a choice issue no? It affects no one else. The reason I say it affects no one else is because straight families and gay families have the same likelihood of being dysfunctional or unstable.

And I know plenty of gay couples that don't. Or have switched partners so many times it is confusing.
Anecdotal evidence proves nothing.
captainobvious_2.jpg
 
So what? I have a happy family that has a mother and a father.

Good for you. This does not negate my point that two gay people can do the same. In fact, it affirms it by showing that being a happy family is the end goal.

So what is your point? You know a happy gay couple? So do I, and hundreds of happy hetero couples.

And how does any of this show that two gay people should not be a family or be able to marry one another.

I don't understand?

Basically he put down gays and made an exception for infertile couples but both make childbirth naturally impossible. This just logically shot down his argument... that's all.
 
No. It's a fact children do better with a mother and a father.

What a load of junk. Children do best with care givers/parents that love them and set up a structured and nurturing environment. Don't try and pain the mom dad life as rosey. Abusive ****bag parents of any sex or orientation suck and I would say that the majority of these ****bags are heterosexual mom/dad run families...

Yes they do. Most of us are not against a gay couple adopting or having the same rights, it's not a marriage. It is a civil union recognized by the state, and the state alone.

It can be marriage if those that are illogically fear bound and against it would simply stop pressuring politicians to keep it illegal.
 
1.) sorry but this may be the biggest stretch of the imagination i have every heard, its pure propaganda. You would not be forced to accept it by any stretch of the imgination. If that silliness was true I guess people are "forced" to accept cussing, premartial sex, nudity, masturbation, tattoos, etc etc etc LMAO

gues people are forced to accept meat can be consumed at any time because McDoalds always sells it, right? LMAO hahahahahahahahah sorry thats pure nonsense. You and your church could still teach, preach and believe what ever you want. Nice try but I live in reality
Obviously you would not be forced to accept it in your own mind. But as you yourself stated, one would be forced to accept it legally. Which I find at least somewhat unacceptable.

And your example comparisons are not valid.

And again with the "you, your, etc." I am not a member of any church. I believe the best description of my stance is Agnostic.

2.) well didnt you imply this would change? it wouldnt and if you didnt it was meaningless to talk about
I should hope I didn't imply any such thing.

And, yes, it was meaningless to talk about, which is why I responded with “Isn’t that what I just said?”

3.) wrong a different name is easily discrimination its that simple. You are picking and choosing when you want to go by the law and religion but i wont let you. If you agree religion is different than law the then LAW name has NO impact on religion so pick one, i wont let you have it both ways LMAO
No.

If all legal marriages are called the same thing, it is obviously not a "different name", and quite the opposite of discrimination.

As to the legal name usage having no effect…That is obviously BS. If the legal usage of the term “marriage” had no effect, no one would care about gay marriage.

It is partially because people consider the very term “marriage” to be sacred that there IS such debate over it.

4.) more BS, the LAW is already doing that NOW and religion hasnt changed so unless the real world becomes your fantasy land this point is meaningless. The law already defines TONS of things different LMAO next.
The "LAW" is doing what now?

And what are you ranting about?

5.) but you will stop others from having equal rights, see thats called a hypocrite.
WTF??? I thought I had specifically stated that I would NOT stop others from having equal rights. In fact my suggestion was one of equal rights.

6.) its actually NOT an unfair comparison at all, i said it was for humor and extreme but changing the name of something based on YOUR religion but ignoring everybody else;s religions or beliefs is in fact discrimination.

Did you not say you dont want it called marriage? if you did yes you do want it called something different
First, this is not based on my religion, as I don't really have one.

Second, I never suggested naming gay marriage something different, which is what you seem to think I suggested.

7/) like i said there is only ONE type of marriage in this debate because the other kind is in fact SECONDARY to the debate and NOT impact by the debate LMAO not my fault you just dont get that LOL
There are currently two types of marriage.

Both are intertwined to an extent, and even if you renamed the legal part, they would still be intertwined.

8.) eventhough people marry that never want to have kids? whooops nice try more empty propaganda

and you religious right to marry wouldnt get impacted one bit, thats a FACT you keep repeating it like it will be but it wont be in reality LMAO
I never suggested that any religious right to marry would be effected.

Any law doing so would quickly be struck down as unconstitutional.

I was simply stating fact.

9.) actually its the forcing of matter that you are making up because religion doesnt have to change you keep debating a fallacy :D
I never said religion would change. Did I?

Please point out where.
 
Last edited:
I don't really feel like digging through links so I'll just concede that point for now. As I've said, just because, a majority supports a bill, doesn't make it the right decision.

I agree, as I said I am not certain.

I'd like to hear your answer.

Like I said it depends on who you ask.

My answer would be it is not discriminatory. I do not want to restrict the rights of anyone. I don't want marriage redefined.

I am OK and would support Civil Unions with all the benefits that go with it. The union would be recognized by all states and the Federal government. I am against redefining marriage for what appears to be the sole purpose of legitimizing the gay life style.

Why isn't it? Also, as I've asked before how does consenting adults negatively affect you or society as a whole?

I have gone over some of this all ready. It's not really that important in the grand scheme of this debate in my opinion.

Let's just say so many things that should be illegal are not according to my morals. I don't support or condone them either. They have had a negative impact on Christians and others as a whole.

We do not live in a theocracy, and I don't want to live in one. I will however follow my moral compass and my God, before any government.

In this country that is perfectly acceptable and how our country works. Good or bad.
 
I think I found the core of our disagreement here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd say we agree that both Heterosexual and Homosexual should have the same legal rights.

Absolutly.

We just disagree is on the actual marriage part. My proposal is that both groups get the same legal rights, we call them civil unions, and we leave the marriage stuff to private institutions who can discriminate as they see fit.

I would support that.

Nail firmly hit.
 
Okay first of all, where is that said?

the last 2000 years of child rearing?

Second, regardless of that question, it's essentially up to the couple (whether straight or gay) and the compatibility of the child that determines whether a child is adopted, right?

I don't care if gays adopt? I said this in my first post.

Therefore, whatever happens, its essentially a choice issue no? It affects no one else. The reason I say it affects no one else is because straight families and gay families have the same likelihood of being dysfunctional or unstable.

Again I don't care if gay couples adopt. We need more adoptive couples.
 
What a load of junk. Children do best with care givers/parents that love them and set up a structured and nurturing environment. Don't try and pain the mom dad life as rosey. Abusive ****bag parents of any sex or orientation suck and I would say that the majority of these ****bags are heterosexual mom/dad run families...

Not true. It is a fact children with 2 parents do much better than children with one.

And considering the success of the mother and father family set up for many centuries. Your comment is just anecdotal garbage.

Sorry, no cigar.

It can be marriage if those that are illogically fear bound and against it would simply stop pressuring politicians to keep it illegal.

Are you going to debate or just rant?
 
the last 2000 years of child rearing?
First of all, marriages have been around since before 2000 years ago, but I'm not getting into that.

Second, that's because most marriages are heterosexual. Let's just say (hypothetically) that out of 100% marriages, 2% are homosexual marriages. Obviously your argument holds simply because heterosexual marriages are so numerous, therefore the likelihood of having ore stable families is greater in the heterosexual percentage.

I don't care if gays adopt? I said this in my first post.
Okay, so we're both playing opinion cards then. We're finished with this part of the discussion.
 
Bodhisattva: What a load of junk. Children do best with care givers/parents that love them and set up a structured and nurturing environment. Don't try and pain the mom dad life as rosey. Abusive ****bag parents of any sex or orientation suck and I would say that the majority of these ****bags are heterosexual mom/dad run families...

I believe homosexuality grows out of dysfunctional families ..
especially when the father ia a self-absorbed azz-hole ..
and mom is in perpetual escape-mode . . . dysfunction breeds dysfunction

I have a nephew and a great nephew of this 'persuasion'
they both came from totally dysfunctional 'families'

I loved my mother very much .. but I would have never wanted two mothers
I loved my father very much .. but I would have never wanted two fathers
 
Last edited:
I believe homosexuality grows our of dysfunctional families ..
especially when the father ia a self-absorbed azz-hole ..
and mom is in perpetual escape-mode . . . dysfunction breeds dysfunction

I was about to correct you, but then I read your sig.
Now I understand.
 
First of all, marriages have been around since before 2000 years ago, but I'm not getting into that.

Second, that's because most marriages are heterosexual. Let's just say (hypothetically) that out of 100% marriages, 2% are homosexual marriages. Obviously your argument holds simply because heterosexual marriages are so numerous, therefore the likelihood of having ore stable families is greater in the heterosexual percentage.

That would make sense. It does not however make me wrong.

Okay, so we're both playing opinion cards then. We're finished with this part of the discussion.

OK.
 
That would make sense. It does not however make me wrong.

What exactly, besides using the old "that's how its always been" card, makes you right?

In fact, I'm not even saying its right or wrong, I'm saying its a matter of choice for a gay couple.
 
What exactly, besides using the old "that's how its always been" card, makes you right?

Because of the "that's how it has always been card" you nailed it. This also considers the longevity and success from culture to culture over thousands of years.

In fact, I'm not even saying its right or wrong, I'm saying its a matter of choice for a gay couple.

OK, it's a choice? You lost me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom