• 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

Seems to me that among gay men in their 40s-50s, or at least the small number I have become acquainted with, that a prior marriage with children seems to be the norm as opposed to the exception. Most gays and their advocates will insist that this was societal oppression that pushed them into a marriage and kids. I think its instead men in their younger days valuing starting a family over sexual gratification, and now in their 40s and 50s with the family raised, sexual gratification rises on the value scale.

Anecdotes aren't evidence. If you want to know what the norm is, maybe you could ask a gay person, who has spent years or decades in the gay community. I'm pretty sure they'll tell you you're wrong.
 
OK so how do you justify the discrimination between the married and unmarried? And what you bolded is basic equal protection law.

Same way we can justify "discrimination" between couples with and without children. Or between couples who rent a house versus own a house. Or who give to charity versus who do not give to charity. Or the discrimination between companies who produce wind energy, and qualify for tax credits, versus coal miners, who don't get wind energy credits, etc. Or how we justify discrimination between former military who get lifetime VA benefits versus those who didn't serve in the military and do not get lifetime VA benefits. We could do this exercise all day long...
 
Anecdotes aren't evidence. If you want to know what the norm is, maybe you could ask a gay person, who has spent years or decades in the gay community. I'm pretty sure they'll tell you you're wrong.
One gay person does not speak for the whole group. There could be gays who got married so as to produce children. Furthermore, this is not "societal oppression".
 
Why would we go through all that, when we've already legalized marriage for same-sex couples nationwide? Do you realise how unbelievably stupid it would be to try to reverse that decision, and then wait for every single state to instate some civil union laws, all to placate the bigoted fools that have a problem with gay people getting married?

In fact, canada, where Wan says she is from, legalized gay marriage in 2005
 
One gay person does not speak for the whole group. There could be gays who got married so as to produce children. Furthermore, this is not "societal oppression".

Neither does a straight person who happens to know some small number of gay couples in their 40s and 50s have anything interesting to say about the gay community. I'll trust the experience and opinions of people in the gay community over a straight person obviously ignorant about the gay community. YMMV of course.

And I don't know that "this" is, nor what you mean by "this" is not "societal oppression."
 
Neither does a straight person who happens to know some small number of gay couples in their 40s and 50s have anything interesting to say about the gay community. I'll trust the experience and opinions of people in the gay community over a straight person obviously ignorant about the gay community. YMMV of course.

And I don't know that "this" is, nor what you mean by "this" is not "societal oppression."

It is not such that a straight person must be wrong when he makes an observation about gays. Also, people in the gay community might still get it wrong about other gays.
 
And it saddens me to this day.

If other people getting married 'saddens' you nearly 15 years later, then I'm sad for you, because IMO that's a pretty weird set of priorities. I can't even wrap my head around being 'sad' that other people, teh gays, are doing something that makes them happier. My own reaction is 180 degrees from that. I've said many times marriage has been a blessing in my life and I HOPE my gay friends and acquaintances and all my straight friends and acquaintances experience the same benefits. What possible good does it do me or society or the world to deny those benefits to gay couples? I'm at a loss...truly.
 
If other people getting married 'saddens' you nearly 15 years later, then I'm sad for you, because IMO that's a pretty weird set of priorities. I can't even wrap my head around being 'sad' that other people, teh gays, are doing something that makes them happier. My own reaction is 180 degrees from that. I've said many times marriage has been a blessing in my life and I HOPE my gay friends and acquaintances and all my straight friends and acquaintances experience the same benefits. What possible good does it do me or society or the world to deny those benefits to gay couples? I'm at a loss...truly.

I don't want to deny any benefits or rights to gay couples. I simply want to point out that their usage of the word "marriage" is incorrect. Of course, not saying this would impact them in any way, but here I am.
 
If other people getting married 'saddens' you nearly 15 years later, then I'm sad for you, because IMO that's a pretty weird set of priorities. I can't even wrap my head around being 'sad' that other people, teh gays, are doing something that makes them happier. My own reaction is 180 degrees from that. I've said many times marriage has been a blessing in my life and I HOPE my gay friends and acquaintances and all my straight friends and acquaintances experience the same benefits. What possible good does it do me or society or the world to deny those benefits to gay couples? I'm at a loss...truly.

Bigotry, like racism, is based in ignorance. It prevents one from seeing the forest for the trees.
 
It is not such that a straight person must be wrong when he makes an observation about gays. Also, people in the gay community might still get it wrong about other gays.

I didn't say that a straight person "must be wrong." So other than beating a straw man, do you have a point?
 
I don't want to deny any benefits or rights to gay couples. I simply want to point out that their usage of the word "marriage" is incorrect. Of course, not saying this would impact them in any way, but here I am.

If them using the word "marriage" still "saddens" you 15 years later, while you support them obtaining the same rights as marriage, that's even more bizarre IMO. If that's what makes you 'sad' I guess life must be otherwise awfully good because on my list of top 1,000 things to worry about in this world of ours, what term a gay couple uses doesn't even make it on that list. There's little I could care less about than that.

To put this in perspective, I saw a pair of rose breasted grosbeaks at my feeder this evening. That's rare in this area in April and I care far more about THAT, roughly 1,000 times more, than what my friend Steve and Donald call their marriage.
 
I didn't say that a straight person "must be wrong." So other than beating a straw man, do you have a point?

I didn't say you did. But you dismissed what Dixon said just because he is straight.

My point is that a straight person's observation about gays can still be correct. One should not outright reject what a straight person says just on the grounds of his not being a gay insider.
 
If them using the word "marriage" still "saddens" you 15 years later, while you support them obtaining the same rights as marriage, that's even more bizarre IMO. If that's what makes you 'sad' I guess life must be otherwise awfully good because on my list of top 1,000 things to worry about in this world of ours, what term a gay couple uses doesn't even make it on that list. There's little I could care less about than that.

This goes beyond gay couples choosing to use the word 'marriage" in a certain way. They want to change our laws.
 
The main reason I say homosexuality is caused by both genetic and environmental factors is because almost all, if not completely all, human behaviors are thus influenced.
that's false a lot of behaviors are instinctual they are a component of the organism. And their environment is influenced because of it. Particularly the instinct to mate. If you were to say that something neurologically speaking was crossed over or flipped around that would cause someone to be attracted to their same-sex that would make more sense. But I disagree with that notion to because of pleiotropy,. Such an explanation makes a lot more sense to me.

And I have heard arguments from both sides that are convincing regarding the whole homosexuality issue. This is why I say what I say. But if you want me to get really technical about it I guess I could add the word "probably" in my sentence (as in, "homosexuality is probably caused by both genetic and environmental factors"). This seems to be what's setting you off.
I don't know. There could be environmental factors we don't know about having an influence on this but your guess is as good as mine. So I would say it's not probable, it is hypothetical.
 
This goes beyond gay couples choosing to use the word 'marriage" in a certain way. They want to change our laws.

Well they're their laws too. And Yes gay people want laws changed. you'll have to make a better argument against it then that they're using your words in a manner of which you disapprove.
 
Well they're their laws too. And Yes gay people want laws changed.

I did not say the laws are the straight people's only. I was responding to Jasper. He seemed to be saying that the whole issue is simply gays choosing to use a word in a certain way. This is not true. They introduced an issue into the public sphere with possible legal ramifications.

you'll have to make a better argument against it then that they're using your words in a manner of which you disapprove.
I don't have any "argument". I just want to correct gays' incorrect usage of the word "marriage" and I did.
 
I did not say the laws are the straight people's only. I was responding to Jasper. He seemed to be saying that the whole issue is simply gays choosing to use a word in a certain way. This is not true.
well I agree it's gays getting brought up to equal status with heterosexuals, and you not liking that.

They introduced an issue into the public sphere with possible legal ramifications.
no ma'am the courts did that.


I don't have any "argument". I just want to correct gays' incorrect usage of the word "marriage" and I did.
I know you failed spectacularly. A same-sex marriage is still called a marriage.
 
well I agree it's gays getting brought up to equal status with heterosexuals, and you not liking that.
I do not care whether gays are "getting brought up" yadda yadda. But you like to rub gay-dom in people's faces a lot. It's probably because deep down you know people dislike gays and you want to annoy straight people (aka normal people) as much as possible.

no ma'am the courts did that.
Courts interpret laws and they issue legal rulings, yes. But the gays introduced this whole "marriage" thing into public discourse. I don't know how you can deny this.
I know you failed spectacularly. A same-sex marriage is still called a marriage.
Thank you for telling me that you think, or excuse me, what you know. It means a lot to me. Also, a same-sex "marriage" is not a real marriage to me. Not saying what I think can change anything, or affect anybody, of course.
 
I do not care whether gays are "getting brought up" yadda yadda. But you like to rub gay-dom in people's faces a lot.
especially when they come into a forum designed specifically to talk about same-sex marriage and say how it's not marriage. I love rubbing it in people's faces like that. If you don't want it rubbed in your face get your face out of here.

It's probably because deep down you know people dislike gays and you want to annoy straight people (aka normal people) as much as possible.
no honestly with people like you I think it titillates you. That's why you're in here jamming your face and everything. You just want to talk about it without letting on that it trips your trigger.


Courts interpret laws and they issue legal rulings, yes. But the gays introduced this whole "marriage" thing into public discourse. I don't know how you can deny this.
I don't deny that gay people wanted their MARRIAGE equal to heterosexual couples.

So I don't know what you're talking about

Thank you for telling me that you think, or excuse me, what you know. It means a lot to me. Also, a same-sex "marriage" is not a real marriage to me.
Fine, think what you want.
Not saying what I think can change anything, or affect anybody, of course.
Okay, but if you're so bothered by same-sex marriage and gay people why in the hell are you talking to me? If you don't want it rub it in your face, and I'm going to around every corner from now on, stop talking to me. If you have subbed the deep-seated desire to hear about my sex life then keep talking to me.
 
I think your victory dance is a bit unfounded. Dixon01767 is giving sound butt-kicking to those he comes into contact with.

You don't want to say anything the hive doesn't want to hear....
 
Dont like calling married homosexual unions marriage dont do it. I sincerely doubt there are many holding such a view who will have any occasion to use another term though.
 
Calling Dixon01767 "regressive" is very close to a personal attack. And it certainly is irrelevant to the topic at hand. What you think he is has no bearing on the veracity of what he says.

Oh spare me, personal attack? LOL. Thicken your skin.
 
And it saddens me to this day.
Wow!

thank you for that info . . . It makes me extremely happy and entertained that equal rights saddens you.
 
Back
Top Bottom