• 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:363]accepting gay as normal

Status
Not open for further replies.
dixon01767 said:
Im the one who advocates extending marriage to any two consenting adults who desire to be married. Most of the supporters of gay marriage here oppose such an extension. It all about the gays.
Click to expand...

They do? Do most heterosexuals join you in extending marriage to any consenting adults?
 
Robertinfremont said:
Take my now dead ex brother in law. He was a homosexual. But married my sister and they bore 5 children. 1 died in infancy. He fled his 4 daughters. Remained a devoted homosexual till he died. As her husband, he molested young male family members.

A sister had a daughter who married a Marine Man. She fled her family to be a homosexual.

Take the case of the woman whose home I appraised. She had bore two adult sons. Perhaps also a Daughter, She fled her family to take up with a woman lover 500 miles away.
Click to expand...

I am unclear as to what this is supposed to prove given that many heterosexuals have done the same. Left a spouse to take up with another lover, many not to have children by the new lover
 
dixon01767 said:
More children being raised by a single parent and grandparent than being raised by gay couples
Click to expand...

You have yet to support this.

and yet they are excluded by law from marriage in all 50 states because gay marriage is about helping gays feel better about their homosexuality. Extending marriage to closely related couples does nothing to further that purpose.
Click to expand...

This same argument could have easily have been made when talking about interracial marriage.

"More children being raised by a single parent and grandparent than being raised by interracial couples, and yet they are excluded by law from marriage in all 50 states because interracial marriage is about helping gays feel better about their miscegenation. Extending marriage to same sex couples does nothing to further that purpose."
 
vegas giants said:
Offer them all the benefits of marriage thru a contract. No reason to deny them that just to make heterosexuals feel good about themselves
Click to expand...

It already exists. It's called a marriage license/certificate.
 
maquiscat said:
You have yet to support this.



This same argument could have easily have been made when talking about interracial marriage.

"More children being raised by a single parent and grandparent than being raised by interracial couples, and yet they are excluded by law from marriage in all 50 states because interracial marriage is about helping gays feel better about their miscegenation. Extending marriage to same sex couples does nothing to further that purpose."
Click to expand...

when talking about interracial marriage. <<<<<<<<< you must be talking of them as homosexuals. To stay on topic of course.
 
Robertinfremont said:
Interestingly enough, men do mate with women along with attendant rituals known for eons.

Men can do what they wish to other consenting humans. Same for women. However to legalize marriage for homosexuals went down the wrong path. IMO.
Click to expand...
In your opinion. Others disagree. Same sex couples now can marry.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
maquiscat said:
I am unclear as to what this is supposed to prove given that many heterosexuals have done the same. Left a spouse to take up with another lover, many not to have children by the new lover
Click to expand...

The question put to me was when I said homosexuals fled marriages. Not when Heterosexuals fled marriages.
 
Robertinfremont said:
From your statements expressing your own attitude, one thing I know right now. IF I agree with you, man will you be satisfied. And If I do not, you will be hot under the collar, what we call angry.

I am charged, not by me, but by you to display what you want proved. I did not even claim marriage will be damaged for heterosexual couples. So you lashed out demanding as I see this to hear my version to support what you claim, to wit: damage to marriage.

Hear this first. In CA, on our ballots was the proposition for homosexuals to have a legal status as equal to marriage, called the union. I said, I favor that. I voted for it. I did not see the union as damaging marriage. I did not see marriage as damaging the union. It was equal both ways.

Well much to my shock, homosexuals charged out demanding marriage and hell no to unions. I felt pissed at them.
Click to expand...
Unions of other kinds were neither offered in full (some places outright banned those too for same sex couples) or not given full equality. Opposite sex couples also do not own the term marriage. You dont get to tell others they cant be married simply because you do not approve of sharing the term.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
dixon01767 said:
Wait, what????? Yes these methods "are used" by gay couples. No one claimed otherwise. Their engaging in sexual relations doesn't have anything to do with their decision to use those methods. While heterosexual sex has a tendency to lead to procreation. Gay sex has no potential to lead to procreation and no tendency to lead to using these methods. Encouraging two horny gay 18 yr old boys to marry does nothing to reduce the number of single mothers on their own with absent or even unknown fathers. Encouraging couples made up of horny boys and girls to marry DOES help reduce the number of single mothers on their own with absent or even unknown fathers. BECAUSE heterosexual sex has a natural tendency to lead to procreation.
Click to expand...
A tendency to lead to procreation, whether married or not, but only for about 80% of couplings. And many purposely take steps not to procreate. In fact, statistically very few sexual acts lead to procreation.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
Robertinfremont said:
For the simple reason it was never about marriage to homosexuals. This crap they peddle about hospitals, death benefits etc are all pure crap. They knew from day one the legal thing to do is have a legal document covering all of that. Any hospital must comply with written directives by party A reference Party B.

My largest complaint from day one was we need to look as did the ancients. I suggested since much of our law is based on Roman law, later it became English Common law and Spanish law, use those two models. Stick to tradition.

Homosexual behavior also existed for Spanish Law Roman law plus English Common law. It is not new and needed no new laws.

I never heard of a homosexual being put into jail for nibbling cocks. That is the major feature of the male homosexual.

How do I know? My brother did that. Also, he died at a very young age and it is my heartfelt belief, that affliction led him to drinking too much and to dying early.
Click to expand...
You dont get to tell others what marriage is to them or why they want it.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
dixon01767 said:
The portrayal of support for men and women responsibly joining together to provide and care for their own children in marriage as homophobic bigotry is particularly absurd.
Click to expand...

Not a single supporter of LBGT rights portrays opposite sex marriage, for whatever reason as homophobic bigotry. Find me one. What is homophobic bigotry, is the insistence that providing and caring for children is the only reason for marriage and thus same sex couples are not entitled to marriage, particularly of the legal variety.

Marriage limited to men and women to improve the wellbeing of children that only heterosexual couples produce is perfectly constitutional discrimination.
Click to expand...

If such was the case, then procreation would be a requirement for marriage. People who had hysterectomies, tubal ligations or vasectomies would not be allowed to marry.

The distinction is rationally related to serving the legitimate governmental interest of improving the wellbeing of children.
Click to expand...

Marriage is not required to improve the well being of children. Parental participation is. Marriage does nothing to require parental participation.

While marriage limited to men and women with the intent to "disparage and injure" homosexuals is what was ruled to be unconstitutional. That, never in human civilization was the purpose in limiting marriage to men and women. Would be like arguing that marriages limitation to just one at a time is all just a nefarious plot to "disparage and injure" Mormons just because they are the ones pushing to permit polygamy.
Click to expand...

Mormons and Muslims are not the only ones who practice polygamy. The rests of us would love to have those legal benefits as well.
 
dixon01767 said:
Too many of the small number of gay people I know, primarily men in their 40s to 60s, have ex wives and a few kids, to believe that's the normal case for homosexuals who breed. Know even fewer lesbians but ex husbands and kids seems to be common as well. I suspect for both sexes, starting a family is more important than sexual gratification when they are young. Once you already have a bitchy ex wife and four grown kids always hitting you up for finances, sexual gratification is more important
Click to expand...
Actually, what you are describing was most likely due to actual negative consequences from coming out as gay. Even in the 1990s, people could still be arrested for having same sex relationships in some states.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
vegas giants said:
Semantics
Click to expand...

Not semantics. A rather vital difference in fact. While many pro- choice people, to continue the example, will attempt to convince women to not have abortions, by legit legal means, while still supporting their right to have one.
 
Robertinfremont said:
Take my now dead ex brother in law. He was a homosexual. But married my sister and they bore 5 children. 1 died in infancy. He fled his 4 daughters. Remained a devoted homosexual till he died. As her husband, he molested young male family members.

A sister had a daughter who married a Marine Man. She fled her family to be a homosexual.

Take the case of the woman whose home I appraised. She had bore two adult sons. Perhaps also a Daughter, She fled her family to take up with a woman lover 500 miles away.
Click to expand...
My father fled 4 children at home after the 2 he wanted reached adulthood (my mom requested he not get a vasectomy after us 1st 2 so she could have more children). My father left my mother for another woman right after my sister under me turned 18.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
dixon01767 said:
Courts declaring that marriage has no relation to procreation detracts from its original purpose.
Click to expand...

Claimed original purpose. The advent of marriage is so lost in history with all manner over variations across the centuries and cultures, that there has not been any one singular purpose of marriage. If there were to be one, the most likeliest would be over lands and profits.
 
maquiscat said:
This is where you are wrong, factually. It was not equal. The proposition did not proved all the legal benefits of legal marriage in the legal union. If it had, then only the die hards, few as they are, would have been whining about the label. The better route would have been to make all the legal institutions "unions", and then leave "marriage" to be argued among everyone else.
Click to expand...
And cost us even more money to change the word marriage in all our laws simply because some can't handle sharing, which they would still have to do.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
dixon01767 said:
Improving the wellbeing of children is beneficial to society.
Click to expand...

No one is arguing against that. But that does nothing to show that limiting marriage or other freedoms to heterosexual couples will do that.
 
dixon01767 said:
Courts declaring that marriage has no relation to procreation detracts from its original purpose.
Click to expand...
It's only your opinion that is it's original purpose. It is not true. And even if it were, it is definitely not it's only purpose now.

You still fail to address the fact that there are state laws that only allow certain couples (cousins) to marry if they cannot procreate. It completely undermines your entire argument.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
dixon01767 said:
Improving the wellbeing of children is beneficial to society. Slavery and bans on interracial marriage are not.
Click to expand...
Allowing same sex marriage improves the well being of children.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom