• 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:
How is it "dishonest"?
Click to expand...

Because it's a lie.
One might say that a law that allows two men to "marry" is not a good law.
Click to expand...

No one rational would say that.
I don't careful to expend energy to convince you that I have honest intentions. Whether you "think" it or "know" it.
Click to expand...

You don't have to. Your posts do it for you.
Why would there need to be "downsides"? I can be opposed to something based on principles alone.
Click to expand...

LOL! YOU??!?! What 'principles'? Dishonesty and distortion?
Why do you love gays so much anyway? Why is it so important to you that they can marry?
Click to expand...

I love the principle of equal rights under the law, something you clearly despise. Why do you hate gays? Why is it so important to you that they be made 2nd class citizens?
 
Wan said:
Not all changes are good.
Click to expand...

Well this one certainly has been. Just ask any same sex couple who's been together for decades what it feels like to obtain something most people take for granted. Having full benefits to be by their side in sickness and in health. To not have their belongings divided up by one side of the family or the other if a death were to occur. Having a say so in medical decisions if their spouse is incapable.

Again most of those things you'd probably take for granted in marrying someone. To those people that didn't have those benefits, it's a very good thing.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
There is literally no downside to gay marriages that you can demonstrate. None.
Click to expand...
Given that such is an opinion value and subjective, there is literally no upside to gay marriage that you can demonstrate. Nor an up or down side to straight marriage for that matter. At best all we can do is show that they are for better or worse for those who agree with our end goals.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
maquiscat said:
Given that such is an opinion value and subjective, there is literally no upside to gay marriage that you can demonstrate. Nor an up or down side to straight marriage for that matter. At best all we can do is show that they are for better or worse for those who agree with our end goals.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

So there's no actual upside to equal rights and representation under the law?

Oh. OK. Sure.
 
SkyFox76 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Accept it or not, the clock will not be turning back on Prohibition.

This is simply a warning that we cannot become relaxed in achieving these freedoms. I do agree with your overall position, but reality is that it can still change back.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
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.


It's fine if you want to think I am debating dishonestly.
Click to expand...
Definition change and shift over time. Faggot originally meant bundle of sticks. Gay was/is joyous or festive.

That said, marriage world wide throughout history has covered a wide range of unions; same sex, 3+ partners, ghost marriages, etc. Only those who are religiously brainwashed (not religious but religiously brainwashed) seek to narrow that definition to just one type. Whether or not any "One True God" (tm) approves of any other marriage does not remove the fact that all those forms have existed.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
Tanngrisnir said:
So there's no actual upside to equal rights and representation under the law?

Oh. OK. Sure.
Click to expand...
Again, while I agree with your position and find it positive myself, that is because we share the same opinion on the matter. I am pointing out that world view can and has shifted many times as to what is good or bad. To the slave owner, slavery is good. To the slave it is bad.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
AGENT J said:
ALso "separate but illegal" is illegal discrimination...
Click to expand...

So here is the question. Noting that there has never been an actual separate but equal law/whatever, and acknowledging the whole what would be the point aspect, would a true separate but equal thing be illegal discrimination? When the only literal difference would be, in this case, the word marriage is replaced with the term civil union, what is lost?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
Wan said:
Not all changes are good.
Click to expand...

And, not all changes people complain about are bad. This one is a good change,.. it is only those who have issues that think otherwise.
 
Wan said:
Actually a transgender cow is not too far off, considering the times we are in.
Click to expand...
How do we know that they don't exist? Given that animals can't express such things to us, there could be transgendered animals out there. We'd never really know. And since they don't over think things like we do, it probably doesn't cause them the same kind of grief as it does humans.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
maquiscat said:
So here is the question. Noting that there has never been an actual separate but equal law/whatever, and acknowledging the whole what would be the point aspect, would a true separate but equal thing be illegal discrimination? When the only literal difference would be, in this case, the word marriage is replaced with the term civil union, what is lost?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Sorry not really interested in opinions on this since its a settled issue. im just here for entertainment. "separate but equal" is illegal discrimination thats all that matters here.

in another thread im game or if you want to PM me thats fine too
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Because it's a lie.
Click to expand...

How is it a lie?

No one rational would say that.
Click to expand...
Funny, cause I am rational and I just said that.

You don't have to. Your posts do it for you.
Click to expand...
If you so desperately want to pin the charge of "dishonest" on me, then go ahead. I will simply admit that you are right. There. Will you finally shut up about it? Is this even important? Whether I am discussing honestly or dishonestly has no bearing on gay marriage.
LOL! YOU??!?! What 'principles'? Dishonesty and distortion?
Click to expand...
Nope. My principles exist and they are nothing you'd understand, so I am not going to bother explaining them to you.

I will say though that you need to tone down your hostility. Just because I hold opposing views to you, it does not mean I am your enemy. We are here to discuss things, hopefully in a civil manner, and for you to imply I have no principles and that I am dishonest does not help further the discussion.

I love the principle of equal rights under the law, something you clearly despise.
Click to expand...
I don't "despise equal rights". I am for civil unions. Provided that they carry the same benefits as marriage.

Why do you hate gays? Why is it so important to you that they be made 2nd class citizens?
Click to expand...
You are not supposed to answer a question with another question. Now how about you actually try to answer my questions.
 
Wan said:
How is it a lie?
Click to expand...

Saying that the term marriage is, by definition, only applicable to hetero couples is a lie. There's no way to dance around that fact.
Funny, cause I am rational and I just said that.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I simply see no credible evidence, based on your posts here, that you're rational.
If you so desperately want to pin the charge of "dishonest" on me, then go ahead. I will simply admit that you are right. There. Will you finally shut up about it? Is this even important? Whether I am discussing honestly or dishonestly has no bearing on gay marriage.
Click to expand...

Why is it important if someone is honest or dishonest in a discussion? Really? That goes directly to my point about you not being rational.
Nope. My principles exist and they are nothing you'd understand, so I am not going to bother explaining them to you.
Click to expand...

I see no evidence of any principles on your part other than the dishonesty and distortion that I already referenced.
I will say though that you need to tone down your hostility. Just because I hold opposing views to you, it does not mean I am your enemy. We are here to discuss things, hopefully in a civil manner, and for you to imply I have no principles and that I am dishonest does not help further the discussion.
Click to expand...

Pointing out dishonesty simply isn't hostility.
I don't "despise equal rights". I am for civil unions. Provided that they carry the same benefits as marriage.
Click to expand...

They do not.
You are not supposed to answer a question with another question. Now how about you actually try to answer my questions.
Click to expand...

Why do you hate gays? Why is it so important to you that they be made 2nd class citizens?
 
maquiscat said:
So here is the question. Noting that there has never been an actual separate but equal law/whatever, and acknowledging the whole what would be the point aspect, would a true separate but equal thing be illegal discrimination? When the only literal difference would be, in this case, the word marriage is replaced with the term civil union, what is lost?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
The problem is what is the point?
Those who are in a civil union can still call themselves married (and most will) eventually it will become the accepted term after all it is easier to say "I am married to X" than it is to say "I am in a civil union with X"
So we create a bunch of paperwork wasting tons of money to appease a few people who are queasy about a term which will be used by people in any case regardless of how queasy it makes certain people feel

I see no logical reason to appease these people who really dont want homosexuals to even exist. Lets be honest there was 0 talk of civil unions until the anti-gay crowd realized that had lost and started to try and come up with an alternative as some sort of rear guard motion.

IMHO civil union is a non started and those who are upset can remain upset all they want but homosexuals are getting married in any case.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Saying that the term marriage is, by definition, only applicable to hetero couples is a lie. There's no way to dance around that fact.
Click to expand...
Huh? I am not sure if we are from the same culture. I am not saying that marriage should definitely exclude gays, but I really do think that traditionally, marriage has always been defined as the union between a man and a woman. Before the whole gay thing came on the scene. You may not agree with this definition, however it's reasonable for a person to think "man and woman" when the word marriage is brought up.

They do not.
Click to expand...
Well, it's like I said, we can work on that. Amending the laws so that now civil union will carry the same benefits and rights as marriage. Will this satisfy you?
 
Wan said:
Huh? I am not sure if we are from the same culture. I am not saying that marriage should definitely exclude gays, but I really do think that traditionally, marriage has always been defined as the union between a man and a woman. Before the whole gay thing came on the scene. You may not agree with this definition, however it's reasonable for a person to think "man and woman" when the word marriage is brought up.


Well, it's like I said, we can work on that. Amending the laws so that now civil union will carry the same benefits and rights as marriage. Will this satisfy you?
Click to expand...

If you thought marriage was only between a man and a woman then you need to rethink the term.
Problem solved.
 
Quag said:
If you thought marriage was only between a man and a woman then you need to rethink the term.
Problem solved.
Click to expand...

Why should I have to rethink anything? Why dont you tell the gays to rethink their lifestyle?
 
Wan said:
Why should I have to rethink anything? Why dont you tell the gays to rethink their lifestyle?
Click to expand...

Why are you against individual liberty.

How un-conservative of you.

Seriously though, I know that the conservative definition of freedom is "free to do as you're told. Or else."
 
Wan said:
Why should I have to rethink anything? Why dont you tell the gays to rethink their lifestyle?
Click to expand...

Becasue your views are the bigoted, anti-rights, anti-freedom views . . . maybe its not your fault dude because thats how it is in your country but in america we have those things and we aint going backwards.
 
Wan said:
Huh? I am not sure if we are from the same culture. I am not saying that marriage should definitely exclude gays, but I really do think that traditionally, marriage has always been defined as the union between a man and a woman. Before the whole gay thing came on the scene. You may not agree with this definition, however it's reasonable for a person to think "man and woman" when the word marriage is brought up.


Well, it's like I said, we can work on that. Amending the laws so that now civil union will carry the same benefits and rights as marriage. Will this satisfy you?
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't need to satisfy me. Gays can now legally marry. Nothing about that, whatsoever, needs any alteration.
 
Wan said:
Why should I have to rethink anything? Why dont you tell the gays to rethink their lifestyle?
Click to expand...

It's not a lifestyle, genius. None of us choose to be gay. We just are.

Deal with it.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Men hate them because they are afraid that they are secretly attracted to men themselves... OR, because they are religious (yet another reason religion is utter crap)
Click to expand...

LOL. Dude, that's a standard gay response to a straight world. I won't bother asking you your sexual preferences since you've already indicated them. :)
 
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.
Click to expand...

We've already worked on it. Gay marriage is now legal in all 50 states per Obergefell v. Hodges.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom