• 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!

[W:3596] Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage

RAMOSS said:
False analogy.

Why are you trying to divert from wanting o discriminate against gays?
Click to expand...

There is no "discrimination" against gays. They already have civil unions. Why are they still unhappy?

Keridan said:
I skipped a lot of the thread because I was busy rolling my eyes. Sorry if I'm just repeating the incredibly obvious point.

Who the hell cares?! Two people of consenting age love each other and are hurting nobody. These people go through all the challenges of any straight couple and more. Who the hell cares!?!?! Let them be.
Click to expand...

Necrophilia hurts nobody too but there are laws against it.
RAMOSS said:
This is yet another false analogy. A cow can not give informed consent. All it can do is MOO.
Click to expand...
What's so special about being able to give consent? Sounds like you are trying to discriminate against those who cannot give consent. We need to become more inclusive.


SkyFox76 said:
Lol, one problem. Same sex marriage is legal. Human/animal isn't.
Click to expand...
If same-sex marriage is legal then so should human/animal.

distraff said:
If you can't show a real-world impact of the problems with the gay marriage then you have no real world evidence that it is harmful and no practical reason to oppose it.
Click to expand...
Who came up with the rule that there must be real-world impacts before one can oppose it? Why can't I oppose something based on principles alone?

I don't think some citizens should impose arbitrary and excessive rules on other citizens without actual evidence these rules are necessary.
Click to expand...
Who decides whether these rules are "necessary" or not?
I am fine if white people want to have their own white bathrooms or have their own whites only marriages. This is fine if you only want this definition for yourself personally and don't want to force it on society by making the government make a bunch of laws and regulations forcing people to be treated differently.
Click to expand...
I didn't say white-only bathrooms or whites only marriages. I said white-only community/living spaces.

Governments already treat people differently. Where I live, if one applies for a federal job, there are boxes one can check to say whether one is a visible minority or First-Nation. And the government hires these people over whites. I am sure there are similar policies in the States (affirmative action comes to mind). This is treating people differently but i don't hear you protest about it.

TheGoverness said:
You just looove making false analogies, don't you?

A cow, does not have the ability to give informed consent. Hence, why people are not allowed to marry animals. Two consenting adults, whether it's two dudes or a man and a woman, can most certainly get married.

But you knew that already.
Click to expand...
What's so special about being able to give consent?

Dragonfly said:
I can legally buy a cow.
Can I legally buy a human?

I can then legally kill that cow, butcher it, and eat it.
Can I do that with a human?

Are you sure you want to play this kind of pathetically asinine game?
Click to expand...
Lol@ "pathetically asinine". You are losing your cool.

calamity said:
Why would you want to? Are you saying that you are naturally sexually attracted to cows?
Click to expand...
Not normally. But when the choice were between a gay and a cow, I'd happily choose the cow as my husband.
 
Wan said:
There is no "discrimination" against gays. They already have civil unions. Why are they still unhappy?
Click to expand...

You keep saying that. That statement is misinformed. It is a lie.

Necrophilia hurts nobody too but there are laws against it.
Click to expand...
INcorrect. A dead person can not give informed concept, and there are health issues. That hurts someone.


All else is not relevant.



What's so special about being able to give consent? Sounds like you are trying to discriminate against those who cannot give consent. We need to become more inclusive.



If same-sex marriage is legal then so should human/animal.


Who came up with the rule that there must be real-world impacts before one can oppose it? Why can't I oppose something based on principles alone?

Who decides whether these rules are "necessary" or not?

I didn't say white-only bathrooms or whites only marriages. I said white-only community/living spaces.

Governments already treat people differently. Where I live, if one applies for a federal job, there are boxes one can check to say whether one is a visible minority or First-Nation. And the government hires these people over whites. I am sure there are similar policies in the States (affirmative action comes to mind). This is treating people differently but i don't hear you protest about it.


What's so special about being able to give consent?


Lol@ "pathetically asinine". You are losing your cool.


Not normally. But when the choice were between a gay and a cow, I'd happily choose the cow as my husband.[/QUOTE]
 
RAMOSS said:
You keep saying that. That statement is misinformed. It is a lie.
Click to expand...

How is it a lie? Civil union exists as a possibility for gays. Maybe just not across all jurisdictions, which we can work on.

INcorrect. A dead person can not give informed concept, and there are health issues. That hurts someone.
Click to expand...
Who does it hurt? What health issues?
 
Wan said:
1.) There is no "discrimination" against gays. They already have civil unions. Why are they still unhappy?
2.)Necrophilia hurts nobody too but there are laws against it.
3.)What's so special about being able to give consent? Sounds like you are trying to discriminate against those who cannot give consent. We need to become more inclusive.
4.)If same-sex marriage is legal then so should human/animal.
5.)Who came up with the rule that there must be real-world impacts before one can oppose it? Why can't I oppose something based on principles alone?
6.) Who decides whether these rules are "necessary" or not?
7.)I didn't say white-only bathrooms or whites only marriages. I said white-only community/living spaces.

Governments already treat people differently. Where I live, if one applies for a federal job, there are boxes one can check to say whether one is a visible minority or First-Nation. And the government hires these people over whites. I am sure there are similar policies in the States (affirmative action comes to mind). This is treating people differently but i don't hear you protest about it.
8.)What's so special about being able to give consent?
9.)Lol@ "pathetically asinine". You are losing your cool.
10.) Not normally. But when the choice were between a gay and a cow, I'd happily choose the cow as my husband.
Click to expand...
this is going to be fun! lol

1.) wrong civil unions factually were not equal, once again you prove how monumentally uneducated you are on this topic. it was FACTUALLY discrimination
2.) necrophilia . . . sweet irony again. Legal contract . . consent .. your retarded claims fails again
3.) you know, law, rights . . .again maybe come to america and learn this stuff in a middle school class
4.) legal contract, law, consent
5.) YOU did, you kept crying about the impact and people making it hard . . .so that was YOU. If you want to take back that concern feel free
6.) first and foremost the Constitution
7.) once again thats not what AA does, wow you dont know anything about this topic. Maybe just stop now dude its getting really bad. You should leave your horrible country. To bad you dont have rights there.
8.) again law and rights. If consent wasnt require some chick could just hold you down and marry you against you will . . is that what you want or does that already go on in your country with no rights.
9.) lol your posts are the only thing losing there cool and losing bad hence everybody kicking the **** out of them and having a good time!
10.) no no no choice remember whats important about consent . .hopefully your country just forces you to marry a cow for your wife.

LMAO i knew that would be pure entertainment
 
Wan said:
There is no "discrimination" against gays. They already have civil unions. Why are they still unhappy?



Necrophilia hurts nobody too but there are laws against it.

What's so special about being able to give consent? Sounds like you are trying to discriminate against those who cannot give consent. We need to become more inclusive.



If same-sex marriage is legal then so should human/animal.


Who came up with the rule that there must be real-world impacts before one can oppose it? Why can't I oppose something based on principles alone?

Who decides whether these rules are "necessary" or not?

I didn't say white-only bathrooms or whites only marriages. I said white-only community/living spaces.

Governments already treat people differently. Where I live, if one applies for a federal job, there are boxes one can check to say whether one is a visible minority or First-Nation. And the government hires these people over whites. I am sure there are similar policies in the States (affirmative action comes to mind). This is treating people differently but i don't hear you protest about it.


What's so special about being able to give consent?


Lol@ "pathetically asinine". You are losing your cool.


Not normally. But when the choice were between a gay and a cow, I'd happily choose the cow as my husband.
Click to expand...

Unless you find yourself a transgender cow you'll be getting yourself a wife. :lol:
 
SkyFox76 said:
Unless you find yourself a transgender cow you'll be getting yourself a wife. :lol:
Click to expand...

Actually a transgender cow is not too far off, considering the times we are in.
 
Wan said:
How is it a lie? Civil union exists as a possibility for gays. Maybe just not across all jurisdictions, which we can work on.


Who does it hurt? What health issues?
Click to expand...

Wow how uninformed can you be LOL
Dude stick to your own rightless and freedomless country
 
Wan said:
Actually a transgender cow is not too far off, considering the times we are in.
Click to expand...

Well since consent and rights arent important to you maybe thats what your government will force you to marry, a cow for a wife. Ill send a gift!! :shrug:
 
Wan said:
How is it a lie? Civil union exists as a possibility for gays. Maybe just not across all jurisdictions, which we can work on.


Who does it hurt? What health issues?
Click to expand...

Are you seriously this naive? I've seen some doosies over the years but you're definitely climbing into the top rankings of most absurd.
 
Wan said:
How is it a lie? Civil union exists as a possibility for gays. Maybe just not across all jurisdictions, which we can work on.


Who does it hurt? What health issues?
Click to expand...

Yet, there are more rights and benefits to the designation of 'marriage'. that is a fact you deny. One right is legally calling their union 'marriage'.
 
Wan said:
How is it a lie? Civil union exists as a possibility for gays. Maybe just not across all jurisdictions, which we can work on.


Who does it hurt? What health issues?
Click to expand...

Civil unions do not carry all the benefits of actual marriage. That you don't know that simply indicates how little honest interest in the subject you have.
 
RAMOSS said:
Yet, there are more rights and benefits to the designation of 'marriage'. that is a fact you deny. One right is legally calling their union 'marriage'.
Click to expand...

I didn't "deny" anything. If marriage does carry more rights and benefits than civil union, we can work on this. I even said this a few posts above.

Tanngrisnir said:
Civil unions do not carry all the benefits of actual marriage. That you don't know that simply indicates how little honest interest in the subject you have.
Click to expand...

I do have honest interest in this debate. I was just unaware that civil unions do not carry all the benefits of marriage.
 
Wan said:
1.) I didn't "deny" anything. If marriage does carry more rights and benefits than civil union, we can work on this. I even said this a few posts above.
2.)I do have honest interest in this debate. I was just unaware that civil unions do not carry all the benefits of marriage. I even said we could work on this a few posts ago.
Click to expand...

1.) it cant be done and theres no need since we already have marriage. ALso "separate but illegal" is illegal discrimination but we know you never heard of it LOL
2.) No you dont, thread history and post history proves that, you are factually uneducated about this topic, you are against equal rights and have completely vile bigoted views. :)
 
AGENT J said:
Well since consent and rights arent important to you maybe thats what your government will force you to marry, a cow for a wife. Ill send a gift!! :shrug:
Click to expand...

I'm looking forward to seeing the bridesmaids dresses.
 
Wan said:
I didn't "deny" anything. If marriage does carry more rights and benefits than civil union, we can work on this. I even said this a few posts above.
Click to expand...

LOL! If that's the case, the entirety of your 'argument' is "They're using a word in a manner I don't approve of! How DARE THEY?!?!!?!"
I do have honest interest in this debate. I was just unaware that civil unions do not carry all the benefits of marriage.
Click to expand...

I simply don't believe you.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
LOL! If that's the case, the entirety of your 'argument' is "They're using a word in a manner I don't approve of! How DARE THEY?!?!!?!"
Click to expand...
This has nothing to do with whether I "approve" or not. By definition, a man and a man (or a woman and a woman) cannot marry.

I simply don't believe you.
Click to expand...
It's fine if you want to think I am debating dishonestly.
 
Why should a homosexual couple accept a civil union instread of a marriage if they want to be married?
 
Wan said:
I didn't "deny" anything. If marriage does carry more rights and benefits than civil union, we can work on this. I even said this a few posts above.



I do have honest interest in this debate. I was just unaware that civil unions do not carry all the benefits of marriage.
Click to expand...

So now that you're aware we can set that civil union thing aside. You keep saying "we can work on this" as though it hasn't already been worked on. Gays have the right to legally marry. Nothing left to work on other than your own personal feelings. Accept it or don't accept it. The clock won't be turning back.
 
SkyFox76 said:
Gays have the right to legally marry. Nothing left to work on other than your own personal feelings. Accept it or don't accept it. The clock won't be turning back.
Click to expand...

Not all changes are good.
 
Wan said:
This has nothing to do with whether I "approve" or not. By definition, a man and a man (or a woman and a woman) cannot marry.
Click to expand...

See? That's laughably dishonest and nothing short of delusional. By definition, a man and a man can marry. I know several such couples.
It's fine if you want to think I am debating dishonestly.
Click to expand...

I don't 'want to think it', I know it by observing your posts.
 
Wan said:
1.)This has nothing to do with whether I "approve" or not. By definition, a man and a man (or a woman and a woman) cannot marry.
2.)It's fine if you want to think I am debating dishonestly.
Click to expand...

1.) wrong by definition they factually can hence why its happening LMAO
2.) you factually are but its entertaining to us so i dont mind. Owning your posts left and right is halarious!
 
Tanngrisnir said:
See? That's laughably dishonest and nothing short of delusional.
Click to expand...

How is it "dishonest"?

By definition, a man and a man can marry. I know several such couples.
Click to expand...
One might say that a law that allows two men to "marry" is not a good law.
I don't 'want to think it', I know it by observing your posts.
Click to expand...

I don't careful to expend energy to convince you that I have honest intentions. Whether you "think" it or "know" it.
Tanngrisnir said:
There is literally no downside to gay marriages that you can demonstrate. None.
Click to expand...
Why would there need to be "downsides"? I can be opposed to something based on principles alone.

Why do you love gays so much anyway? Why is it so important to you that they can marry?
 
Wan said:
Not all changes are good.
Click to expand...

this change is GREAT!!! Equal rights winning and vile bigotry like your losing is great for all Americans . . .see we live in a country that has rights and freedoms, to bad you dont dude.
 
Wan said:
1.) How is it "dishonest"?
2.)One might say that a law that allows two men to "marry" is not a good law.
3.)I don't careful to expend energy to convince you that I have honest intentions. Whether you "think" it or "know" it.
4.)Why would there need to be "downsides"? I can be opposed to something based on principles alone.
5.)Why do you love gays so much anyway? Why is it so important to you that they can marry?
Click to expand...

1.) because he is giving you the benefit of the doubt or are you saying that was an honest answer and when it comes to this topic you are that uneducated? the only two choices are dishonest or stupidity of the topic :shrug:
2.) only a bigot or somebody against equal rights
3.) again its dishonest or ignorance, pick one
4.) again because YOU claimed there were . . .see more ignorance
5.) normal people respect equal rights ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom