• 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

I made no assertion regarding the gay community and we can see where the ignorance resides.

Yes, you did. I'll quote you.

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.
 
Yes, you did. I'll quote you.

He actually has it backwards. Fact is. Guys in their 20's think with their dicks. Guys hitting 50 think with their stomachs. I'll take a good cook over a fine piece of ass any day, at my age.
 
If you can locate your nads, quote and respond to MY posts you believe is rooted in ignorance and state why.

Pretty much any post, take for instance the one Jasper quoted above, shows ignorance and incredibly archaic thinking. Why? Because the post is incorrect, false, and based on nothing grounded in reality other than something pulled out of a butt.
 
I think (could be wrong) Dixon was saying that the whole thing is not strictly about constitutional rights for gays. Gays simply want to have things their way and if they dont get their way, they throw temper tantrums and shriek "we have been discriminated against".

How are gays fighting for their civil rights any differently than women suffragettes and blacks during the Civil Rights movement? They marched and protested and demanded their/our rights. It inconvenienced people, people attacked them, it pissed people off, etc etc.

Why shouldnt gays do the same?
 
Not a problem people just pointing out the fact that theres no support for your claim and how you apply it nor for you irrationally singling out homosexuality.
But we all know its simply based on your bigoted views and no logic hence why we mock it.

This is very astute of you J. Because I'm sure you realize that the actual or 'official' referenced definitions of words and concepts mean little to Wan. She doesnt need 'facts' or definitions because she uses her own definitions and inventions. So reality doesnt matter to her...just how 'she feels' about it. Just 'what she believes' is true or right. See: her definition of 'murder.'

It doesnt matter when something is true or real...if Wan doesnt agree, it's not so. I hope this helps you to determine a different means of communicating your debate to her...all in a good faith effort to continue with constructive discussions here on the forum.
 
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.

I've seen several people post this, including one in this thread.

When asked if the millions of gays who claim they were born gay are lying...they say 'yes,' they're all lying.' Or mistaken (deluded by the Devil or abuse in childhood)
 
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.

It doesnt impact you in anyway either.
 
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.

the amusing thing is, even if gays had only been granted civil unions, they'd still call it marriage and say they were married. Call themselves husbands, wives. :lol: That was the case in CA when they had same sex unions.

So the reasoning behind the illegal 'separate but equal' 'solution' would be meaningless in reality.
 
Read carefully


"had", past tense, being the operative word. Back when the Federal DOMA was in place California same sex marriages were identical to California same sex unions. Its like you dont even read what you choose to respond to. You just blurt out "false" or "no its not" when you havent even a clue as to what you are babbling on about.

unless it was not called a marriage and hetero marriages weer not called civil unions
 
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.
I see. So you don't debate, you just want to annoy people by rubbing it in people's faces. I hear you.

Secondly, when I say "rubbing it in people's faces", I dont mean just here. I mean out there in real life, too. Gays constantly shriek and wail when they don't get their way.

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.
Lol, you just insinuated that I am a closet homosexual like it's a bad thing. This is further proof that deep down, you know being gay is shameful and bad.
I don't deny that gay people wanted their MARRIAGE equal to heterosexual couples.

So I don't know what you're talking about
My point was that this whole gay marriage issue is not simply a matter of gays choosing to use a word in a certain way. It goes beyond that.
Fine, think what you want.
Okay, but if you're so bothered by same-sex marriage and gay people why in the hell are you talking to me?
I am not going to go back to the previous pages and look for your posts, but I am quite sure I did not seek you out. I believe I was talking to Jasper and then you started to chime in and responded 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.
I don't want to stop talking to you. You usually have good posts and you are civil (well, most of the times).
If you have subbed the deep-seated desire to hear about my sex life then keep talking to me.
This titillates me. Please tell me more.

Oh spare me, personal attack? LOL. Thicken your skin.
I dont need to "thicken my skin" because that personal attack was not directed at me. I am just pointing out the fact personal attacks are not debating. Sorry you don't see this.
One gay person does not speak for the entire group, but it doesn't change the fact that a lot of gay people got into straight relationships due to societal pressure against being gay. Yes, that is a result of societal oppression, because intolerance bred that kind of result. Which is why it's much more beneficial that gay people are able to come out more freely.
I would not call it societal "oppression". Societal pressure, yes.
If it's personal, it is therefore anecdotal.
Anecdote is a story. What I related was a personal experience. These two are not synonymous just because they are both personal in nature.

i don't mind gay people i would prefer not see people like you
Thank you for sharing your opinion.

Oh, how DARE THEY!!! Gay people having independent political preferences, and wanting to change (unknown) laws in (unknown) ways, and publicly expressing their political views!! THIS SHALL NOT STAND!!

I never said gays could not try to change laws. What I was saying is that you are wrong when you said this was simply a matter of gays choosing to use a word in a certain way. It's not. What they are doing has real-life consequences.

No, not just because he is straight. "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."
But after this part, you said you'd rather trust a gay person over Dixon (slightly paraphrasing). You did not outright state it but your post implied that the reason you rejected Dixon's view was precisely because he is not gay. You did not say anything about the sample size being too small.
 
Last edited:
I see. So you don't debate, you just want to annoy people by rubbing it in people's faces. I hear you.

Secondly, when I say "rubbing it in people's faces", I dont mean just here. I mean out there in real life, too. Gays constantly shriek and wail when they don't get their way.


Lol, you just insinuated that I am a closet homosexual like it's a bad thing. This is further proof that deep down, you know being gay is shameful and bad.

My point was that this whole gay marriage issue is not simply a matter of gays choosing to use a word in a certain way. It goes beyond that.

I am not going to go back to the previous pages and look for your posts, but I am quite sure I did not seek you out. I believe I was talking to Jasper and then you started to chime in and responded to me.

I don't want to stop talking to you. You usually have good posts and you are civil (well, most of the times).

This titillates me. Please tell me more.


I dont need to "thicken my skin" because that personal attack was not directed at me. I am just pointing out the fact personal attacks are not debating. Sorry you don't see this.

I would not call it society "oppression". Social pressure, yes.

Anecdote is a story. What I related was a personal experience. These two are not synonymous just because they are both personal in nature.


Thank you for sharing your opinion.



I never said gays could not try to change laws. What I was saying is that you are wrong when you said this was simply a matter of gays choosing to ouse a
word in a certain way. It's not. What they are doing has real-life consequences.


But after this part, you said you'd rather trust a gay person over Dixon(slightly paraphrasing). You did not outright state it but your post implied that the reason you rejected Dixon's view was precisely because he is not gay. You did not say anything about the sample size being too small.

your well come
 
Yes, when unequal treatment is applied.

Well I dont want to go off tangent in a thread on marriage so I'll just say that since I dont care if legal marriage exists or not, I dont care if single people dont get the "same treatment" as married couples because I see it as irrational to accord single people the same benefits as 2 people in a legal contract.
 
Point to one single diference other than the word marriage. Because the only difference youve identified was based upon your mistaken belief that the federal govenment recognized California same sex marriages at the time when in fact they did not.

If the word is so inconsequential...why are you and Wan making such a fuss over the word?
 
If they were "identical" civil unions would have been recognized like "marriages" in all 50 states, but were not.


Good god this is getting old. There was a short period in California where gay marriages were legal, bunch of gays got married and then a court decision overuled what the legislature had done. Those gay marriages were left in place. Before all of this California already had same sex unions. These gay marriages were identical to California same sex unions. the Federal government didnt recognise either of them. A california same sex union was identical to a California same sex marriage. NOT identical to a california opposite sex marriage. No one claimed they were. AND THEN we got the federal case before the gay california judge, Vaughn Walker, for discrimination on the basis of the difference in labels used, marriage or union. And he decided gays needed more "respect and dignity" and that the word union doesnt cut it.
 
Last edited:
OK, so we don't have kids, and we're "discriminated!" against because I cannot take claim deductions or credits for children we don't have! I'm a victim of DISCRIMINATION!!

The estate tax is intended to tax the transfer of wealth, so it's not "discrimination" when that tax is levied and payable at death. Congress wrote an exception to the law for spouses, so I guess if people think they are entitled under the constitution to marry their brothers, they should attempt to marry their brother, then file a lawsuit when they are denied that opportunity. Has nothing to do with SSM.

His discussion has gone from discrimination in a right to legal marriage to discrimination for anyone not getting the same benefits as married Americans. He didnt get any traction on the gay marriage front so has now expanded his argument.
 
If the word is so inconsequential...why are you and Wan making such a fuss over the word?

Im not. Just simply pointed out

In California they had same sex unions identical to same sex marriages and the gays and their advocates boo hooed our constitutional rights are violated if we don't get the word marriage.

then you all been responding claiming this isnt true.
 
Good god this is getting old. There was a short period in California where gay marriages were legal, bunch of gays got married and then a court decision overuled what the legislature had done. Those gay marriages were left in place. Before all of this California already had same sex unions. These gay marriages were identical to California same sex unions. the Federal government didnt recognise either of them. A california same sex union was identical to a California same sex marriage. NOT identical to a california opposite sex marriage. No one claimed they were. AND THEN we got the federal case before the gay california judge for discrimination on the basis of the difference in labels used, marriage or union. And he decided gays needed more "respect and dignity" and that the word union doesnt cut it.

Watching you trying to hide your mistake and factually wrong claim NEVER gets old.
Heres your statment

In California they had same sex unions identical to same sex marriages and the gays and their advocates boo hooed our constitutional rights are violated if we don't get the word marriage.

Still factually wrong, you can post with honesty and integrity and admit that fact or keep denying it and people will keep pointing it out and mocking it.
 
His discussion has gone from discrimination in a right to legal marriage to discrimination for anyone not getting the same benefits as married Americans.

It was always both
 
Im not. Just simply pointed out



then you all been responding claiming this isnt true.

They were right. SCOTUS determined "separate but equal" is not Constitutional.
 
Still factually wrong, you can post with honesty and integrity and admit that fact or keep denying it and people will keep pointing it out and mocking it.

As opposed to presenting even a shred of evidence to dispute it. Ive noticed. Seems to be common here. You should start a "mocking" forum, I think this is a debate forum.
 
As opposed to presenting even a shred of evidence to dispute it. Ive noticed. Seems to be common here. You should start a "mocking" forum, I think this is a debate forum.
so you choose to deny it and further our entertainment AWESOME!

Theres nothing to debate, we simply pointed out a fact like 2+2=4, if you disagree simply support YOUR claim, it cant be done hence why you avoid it.

You jumped in a conversation that had context, spouted off something that is factually wrong and it got called out by multiple posters. if the fact bothers theres a VERY simply solution to your issue, simply dont make retarded false claims in the future that you cant back up. You're welcome.
 
For the record I call BS but you know I'm not going to go back and check the 1st 50 or so pages....

From the 4/16th and 17th

Equal protection presents a good argument as to why discrimination betwen the married and unmarried is unconstitutional. You dont want equality. You want the INEQUALITY by design that discriminates between the married and unmarried.

That would be a good argument that any two consenting adults should be able to marry. Instead they only extended marriage to gays, because its not about equality and is instead inequality by design for the benefit of gays.
 
so you choose to deny it and further our entertainment AWESOME!

Theres nothing to debate, we simply pointed out a fact like 2+2=4, if you disagree simply support YOUR claim, it cant be done hence why you avoid it.

You jumped in a conversation that had context, spouted off something that is factually wrong and it got called out by multiple posters. if the fact bothers theres a VERY simply solution to your issue, simply dont make retarded false claims in the future that you cant back up. You're welcome.

You da man!
 
Back
Top Bottom