• 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.
Wow.

WTH happened whilst I was away?

:shock:
 
The arguments have already been made here. You can re-read the thread and ask specifics, but I will not entertain trolling.

Your arguments have already been thoroughly debunked. I will not entertain trolling.
 
Look @ 769.

And 767. His position has been shown to have no merit and he will not address anything here because he has nothing. Instead he just rehashes the same debunked information claiming that it is true, when it has been shown to not be. This is trolling, and he has done this before.
 
And 767. His position has been shown to have no merit and he will not address anything here because he has nothing. Instead he just rehashes the same debunked information claiming that it is true, when it has been shown to not be. This is trolling, and he has done this before.

How ironic, and tiresome.
 
Normal is a simple statistical relationship: what most people do.
Morality is fixed in time regardless of your rejection of it.
The anus is not designed for sex and that type of intercourse is unhealthy.
I don't support a ban on anything, just don't tell children that something is healthy when its not.

There is no such thing as normal. It is a fallacy.
Morality is not fixed in time, nor is it absolute. Or do you kill everyone you see working on the Sabbath? Because that was the "moral" thing to do way back when.
Anal sex when done properly is in no way unhealthy, and is a common practice between both straight, and LGBT couples.
Take your own advice.
 
Last edited:
There aren't any others trying to debate the OP. The OP asked for a rational argument for stopping gay marriage, which I have provided. Southern Man is rambling on about how homosexuality is a sin, which is completely off topic, since sinners are allowed to marry each other all the time. Everyone else is arguing with SM about religion. I am the only one who is actually on topic per the OP. But since you refuse to address your own topic you can come address my virtually identical one:


dude read this slow as im not typing it again in this thread. You are NOT arguing the OP. The OP's argument is based on America, Laws and Marriage existing and how that is relevant to GAY MARRIAGE. If you take all marriage away then thats a new argument. No matter how much you want it not to be it is. Sorry you just dont get it but thats not my fault LOL

As per your request, the thread is here:

Logical Argument against Gay Marriage

good for you, glad you saved face and you started a new topic, if I have time and im interested maybe ill check it out because having no marriage isnt really an interest of mine but we'll see
 
So if the law stated that discrimination was acceptable, your morals would not compel you to change it?

SO are you now CHANGING your original post against me and asking a new question?
If the law stated ANYTHING and it was against my morals the answer is I "might" be compelled to change it. Since I live in America and understand what that means and what its about I get that my morals are everybody's morals and i would have to think about the impact of preaching my morals as law. If we only went on "my" morals this woud not be AMerica anymore and if I actually wanted that it would make me a moron, a hypocrite and totally anti-american IMO.

theres your answer, long but an answer none the less

now on to what you actually said, acussed me of earlier and were wrong. In this case my morals have zero to do with it, im fighting for the already excisiting law which I believe in. Moral dont play a role in this debate for me.
 
You think a person can actually get physically injured over getting beat in a debate so bad? If so SM is bleeding from every hole.

Lets check the count

GOOD REASONS: 0
 
Prediction: you cannot win this argument and out of frustration will abuse your moderator privileges, ban me from this thread and claim false victory. :mrgreen:

Prediction. You can not win this argument so you will act out and get thread banned, and then falsely claim that you were eliminated from the discussion because you were winning.

Southern Man, your position has been thoroughly debunked, every time you post here. You offer no evidence. You just keep repeating the same old false statements. Just remember, if you act out, it's because you KNOW you can't win because you've got NOTHING and you are looking for an easy way out.

Now, if you actually believe that you have a position, try showing some actual evidence.
 
Prediction: you cannot win this argument and out of frustration will abuse your moderator privileges, ban me from this thread and claim false victory.
Neither of you can win.


Your arguments are based on completely different and diametrically opposed foundations.

Yours, on what you believe to be fact.

His, on what he believes to be logic and scientific fact.

Since both sides believe their positions are correct, and are unlikely to budge, neither will win (defining "win" as one side conceding to the other).
 
Neither of you can win.

Your arguments are based on completely different and diametrically opposed foundations.

Yours, on what you believe to be fact.

His, on what he believes to be logic and scientific fact.

Since both sides believe their positions are correct, and are unlikely to budge, neither will win (defining "win" as one side conceding to the other).

I define winning differently. It means proving one's point/position with logic/evidence. In that case, I will surely win, and he will surely lose. As far as changing his mind, I'm certain that will not occur.
 
If you define "win" as "having the other side agree with your point and concede defeat" then no, neither side can win here.

However, if you define "win" as "produce the most logic and evidence to support your side" then this debate was won long ago.
 
Neither of you can win.

Your arguments are based on completely different and diametrically opposed foundations.

Yours, on what you believe to be fact.

His, on what he believes to be logic and scientific fact.

Since both sides believe their positions are correct, and are unlikely to budge, neither will win (defining "win" as one side conceding to the other).

Very true.

I also define winning as having a moderator get so frustrated that he abuses his privledges. In this case I predict it will by unequal aplication of the trolling rule, as this is the most subjective. :)
 
There is no such thing as normal. It is a fallacy.
Morality is not fixed in time, nor is it absolute. Or do you kill everyone you see working on the Sabbath? Because that was the "moral" thing to do way back when.
Anal sex when done properly is in no way unhealthy, and is a common practice between both straight, and LGBT couples.
Take your own advice.

Your argument boils down to 'because you say so'. :)
 
Assuming for a moment that is true. How is yours not?

Because mine is based on reality, and yours is based on your misinterpretation of a book written thousands of years ago.
 
"Cultural Universal". Everywhere on Earth, in any place, at any point in time, marriage is about the raising and socializing of children. Modern gay marriage is not, thus it is counter-culture.

There's no reason to care about your relationship if you aren't raising children whether you're gay or straight, living together or not. Go live with whomever you want. Have your life and I hope you live a good one. The legal buffs are for couples raising children, because raising children is the State's interest in promoting a relationship. Marriage is not for heteros looking for a tax brake, it's not for gays looking for social validation of their identity.

Gays don't make their movement about children. They make it about rights, etc, so there is no reason to care about gay marriage.

It's more that promoting a relationship or social validation and at times it is about raising children. Without being married or something like it gay couples can't visit each other in the hospital, they can't collect survivor benefits from social security or a pension, and they can lose custody of a child if one parent dies.
 
Just once, I'd like someone against gay marriage to explain to me how it hurts them in the slightest or how it is any of their business.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom