• 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

Wan said:
I am sorry that you cannot deal with the fact that most normal people are put off by gays. But you must realize this is not my fault.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry that people like you cry tears over gay people getting married.
 
Wan said:
But nobody is taking rights away from gay couples. They can still have civil union.
Click to expand...

"Separate but equal" was found invalid Constitutionally, by SCOTUS.

So perhaps this is just another of those inconvenient actual definitions that you prefer to ignore? You know, like the (multiple) definitions of murder?

If civil unions are the same...why dont straight couples clamor for that?
 
TheGoverness said:
Your "belief" is utterly worthless. Especially since you've been unable to back up anything you'd spewed in here, with actual science.
Click to expand...

"Science" says being gay has both genetic and environmental factors. This is not "my belief".
 
Wan said:
"Science" says being gay has both genetic and environmental factors. This is not "my belief".
Click to expand...

You are twisting science to fit your false, incorrect conclusion. Research regarding this matter, has not demonstrated that one can be "seduced" into homosexuality, which you have continued to falsely claim. Of course, you don't have credible scientific research to back that up, because there isn't any. It's just bull**** homophobes like you made up.
 
TheGoverness said:
You are twisting science to fit your false, incorrect conclusion. Research regarding this matter, has not demonstrated that one can be "seduced" into homosexuality, which you have continued to falsely claim. Of course, you don't have credible scientific research to back that up, because there isn't any. It's just bull**** homophobes like you made up.
Click to expand...

I never said I have "proof" that people can be seduced into being gay. However, that science says being gay has both genetic and environmental factors is widely known. I did not make it up.
 
Wan said:
I never said I have "proof" that people can be seduced into being gay. However, that science says being gay has both genetic and environmental factors is widely known. I did not make it up.
Click to expand...

But it's still ok to discriminate against those who's skin color and sexual orientation has "genetic factors?"

Apparently in your mind but most civilized people try not to disparage people for their genetic complement which is no fault of their own.
 
Wan said:
I never said I have "proof" that people can be seduced into being gay. However, that science says being gay has both genetic and environmental factors is widely known. I did not make it up.
Click to expand...

It's like what I wrote did not register in your brain. What about 'you are twisting science to fit your false, incorrect conclusion' do you not understand?
 
CLAX1911 said:
No it doesn't there hasn't been any conclusive studies that all saying why people are gay.
Click to expand...

I did not say there are "conclusive studies". I said that the consensus is that there are genetic and environmental factors that give rise to homosexuality. To what degree each plays a part and how they influence each other are currently unknown. In fact they probably have not even identified all possible factors.
 
TheGoverness said:
It's like what I wrote did not register in your brain. What about 'you are twisting science to fit your false, incorrect conclusion' do you not understand?
Click to expand...

I "do not understand it" because I haven't "twisted science".
 
Wan said:
However, that science says being gay has both genetic and environmental factors is widely known. I did not make it up.
Click to expand...

No, that's total BS and you did make it up.
 
Wan said:
I did not say there are "conclusive studies". I said that the consensus is that there are genetic and environmental factors that give rise to homosexuality. To what degree each plays a part and how they influence each other are currently unknown. In fact they probably have not even identified all possible factors.
Click to expand...

So there are no conclusive studies, but there's somehow a consensus? What is it based off of then?
 
CLAX1911 said:
do you have evidence of this consensus.
Click to expand...

There's not a single academic paper in existence claiming environmental factors contribute to someone being gay.
 
ecofarm said:
There's not a single academic paper in existence claiming environmental factors contribute to someone being gay.
Click to expand...

I didn't figure there would be. I've actually seen quite a few studies that suggest otherwise. Twin studies in Sweden for example.
 
CLAX1911 said:
I didn't figure there would be. I've actually seen quite a few studies that suggest otherwise. Twin studies in Sweden for example.
Click to expand...

She can't produce a single study supporting her claim. She made it up out of thin air.
 
ecofarm said:
Ignorance and fear are formidable opponents.
Click to expand...

7379126.gif
 
Wan said:
But nobody is taking rights away from gay couples. They can still have civil union.
Click to expand...

That's a non sequitur, totally unrelated to my comment. But I'll play along....

First of all, civil unions aren't equivalent to marriage. Two, even where they were available weren't recognized in all states. Three, why do you care what it's called if it is equivalent...or close enough?

Call it "marriage" and everyone in the U.S. knows what it means, what rights it entitles the couple, and their obligations. The courts, government agencies, IRS, creditors, home buyers and sellers, banks, hospitals, and more are all dealing with the couple from a position of certainty if it's a "marriage." If it's a civil union, who the hell knows what that means, especially if they were "unioned" in CA and the couple is in Alabama or Tennessee that didn't recognize civil unions.

Point is, why not just call it "marriage" and afford gay couples the SAME rights, and obligations? If you want less than that for some inexplicable reason, you'll have to explain why.
 
JasperL said:
That's a non sequitur, totally unrelated to my comment. But I'll play along....

First of all, civil unions aren't equivalent to marriage. Two, even where they were available weren't recognized in all states. Three, why do you care what it's called if it is equivalent...or close enough?

Call it "marriage" and everyone in the U.S. knows what it means, what rights it entitles the couple, and their obligations. The courts, government agencies, IRS, creditors, home buyers and sellers, banks, hospitals, and more are all dealing with the couple from a position of certainty if it's a "marriage." If it's a civil union, who the hell knows what that means, especially if they were "unioned" in CA and the couple is in Alabama or Tennessee that didn't recognize civil unions.

Point is, why not just call it "marriage" and afford gay couples the SAME rights, and obligations? If you want less than that for some inexplicable reason, you'll have to explain why.
Click to expand...

Calling it marriage is not the only way that gays can enjoy the same rights. We have give them civil union, and change laws so that all the legal concerns you raised no longer exist, and now both sides will be happy.
 
Wan said:
Calling it marriage is not the only way that gays can enjoy the same rights. We have give them civil union, and change laws so that all the legal concerns you raised no longer exist, and now both sides will be happy.
Click to expand...

So then, as a conservative (as your info states) you are all for bigger govt, more bureaucracy, more govt oversight into people's personal lives and more taxpayer $ spent on duplicative systems? And as this is a pretty basic premise for conservatives, even a 'slightly' conservative person should find that appalling. I'm a liberal and I find the idea of that time and $ spent appalling.

Yes or no?
 
CLAX1911 said:
do you have evidence of this consensus.
Click to expand...

Indeed I have no evidence, it was just the general impression I got when I went to school. But it's not unreasonable nor all that un-fathomable. Surely you don't mean to tell me scientists have figured out what exactly causes homosexuality and it's purely genes, do you?
ecofarm said:
There's not a single academic paper in existence claiming environmental factors contribute to someone being gay.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you are saying. Are you saying it's been conclusively proven that homosexuality is entirely genetic?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom