• 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

Logician Man said:
Your assertion is flawed, and I explained why in detail.
Click to expand...

I explained why you are wrong in detail... there is a separation between voting for a person and what that person can do once in office. What you are doing is trying to link them and therefore indicate that I am wrong. That is the Straw Man.
 
Bodhisattva said:
I explained why you are wrong in detail... there is a separation between voting for a person and what that person can do once in office. What you are doing is trying to link them and therefore indicate that I am wrong. That is the Straw Man.
Click to expand...

I'm not 'trying' to link them, I 'did' link them and explained in detail how and why they are linked. A 'vote' may not be the 'final' say, but by definition, it is an 'official' say.It's all part of the 'process' by which American voters have their 'official say' There is no strawman, just a failed argument on your part.
 
Logician Man said:
I'm not 'trying' to link them, I 'did' link them and explained in detail how and why they are linked. A 'vote' may not be the 'final' say, but by definition, it is an 'official' say.It's all part of the 'process' by which American voters have their 'official say' There is no strawman, just a failed argument on your part.
Click to expand...

Yes, you linked them. That does not mean that they both apply to my point. Showing your ID at the voting booth also is part of the process by which American voters have their 'official say' and is equally irrelevant to what I said...
 
Bodhisattva said:
Yes, you linked them. That does not mean that they both apply to my point. Showing your ID at the voting booth also is part of the process by which American voters have their 'official say' and is equally irrelevant to what I said...
Click to expand...

So now you admit American voters do indeed get an 'official' say. I rest my case, as you have proven me to be accurate and correct.
 
Logician Man said:
So now you admit American voters do indeed get an 'official' say. I rest my case.
Click to expand...

Not in what laws are passed... please never try to present a case in court.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Glad to hear that... me too.
Click to expand...

Just to wrap it up Bhodi, my first post in this thread ( paraphrasing ) was that all American voters get an 'official say' on legal issues regarding matters of gay marriage by casting ballots for, or against, politicians/judges depending on their respective views and having an 'official say', as a vote is 'official', and it is how voters 'voice/say" their desires. Your argument seems to be that statement is inaccurate because only members of the legislative branch, and in some cases elected judges are the only ones who have the power to make/interpret said laws, and therefore are the only ones who get an 'official say' . You introduced that caveat in addition to my original post in an attempt to dismiss my stance as a falsehood based on those added criteria. I never stated all American voters get an 'official say' because they are empowered to make/interpret laws. So, when you claim I am incorrect that all American voters don't get an 'official say' on these issues, that is simply not a valid argument. A ballot vote is how Americans 'get their' official say' on issues. Point being, you seem to be arguing ( correct me if I'm wrong, as I certainly don't want to put words in your mouth ), that only legislaters and judges have an 'official say',and other voters don't get an 'official say', which I respectfully disagree with for the reasons I stated. The point of contention/disagreement here seems to be 'official say' vs 'final official say'. Agree or disagree ?
 
Last edited:
Bodhisattva said:
Glad to hear that... me too.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I know what your referring to, and I'm glad it worked out well for you. Mine was a civil issue also, but a different matter involving siblings and taking advantage an of elderly , incapacitated parent and a failed attempt at a money grab and warehousing a parent in a ****hole facility with resources who deserved the best treatment available per earlier family agreements.
 
Wan said:
I think it's because deep down, they know that being gay is shameful. And they also know that straight folks know this, too.
Click to expand...

What is shameful about being gay?
 
dixon01767 said:
We already have gay marriage and have not seen "hundreds of thousands, if not more, religious people that believe in marriage (but object to gay marriage) would forego the marriage license". We also wouldnt see it wih the likely relatively rare marriage between two closely related people. And even if we did, that would more than make up for the administrative cost of two closely related people marrying you were earlier complaining about.
Click to expand...

I know. That's why I believe most are hypocrites on the matter.

WHy are we back to 'closely related' couples again? I thought you had broadened your argument to any 2 consenting adults? You certainly seemed to accept the bus driver and his passenger and the other examples I offered. Certainly those seeking govt entitlements would consider it a option.
 
dixon01767 said:
No, when a lesbian gives birth, her lesbian spouse isnt presumed to be the father, or mother.
Click to expand...

But the laws you describe would ensure the baby is covered legally.

And if a lesbian is married, then when the baby is adopted, the other partner is wife and mother.
 
Lursa said:
But the laws you describe would ensure the baby is covered legally.

And if a lesbian is married, then when the baby is adopted, the other partner is wife and mother.
Click to expand...

But it can't work you see because they're the same sex and some people just really really really don't like that.

Lol
 
Logician Man said:
Just to wrap it up Bhodi, my first post in this thread ( paraphrasing ) was that all American voters get an 'official say' on legal issues regarding matters of gay marriage by casting ballots for, or against, politicians/judges depending on their respective views and having an 'official say', as a vote is 'official', and it is how voters 'voice/say" their desires.
Click to expand...

That would be the case in a few states that enacted gay marriage through legislation or a referendum. For all the rest of the country it was imposed by judges that are appointed. Giving voters no say whatsoever. In many states directly in opposition to what the votes in the states had said in referendums.
 
Last edited:
Lursa said:
I know. That's why I believe most are hypocrites on the matter.
Click to expand...

Yesterday you argued precisely the opposite.

Lursa said:
WHy are we back to 'closely related' couples again?
Click to expand...

We never left it.

Lursa said:
thought you had broadened your argument to any 2 consenting adults?
Click to expand...

Extending marriage to closely related couples would make marriage available to any 2 consenting adults



Lursa said:
You certainly seemed to accept the bus driver and his passenger and the other examples I offered. Certainly those seeking govt entitlements would consider it a option.
Click to expand...

Bus drivers and their passengers are and have always been free to marry. Cant imagine what you are babbling on about now.
 
Lursa said:
But the laws you describe would ensure the baby is covered legally.

And if a lesbian is married, then when the baby is adopted, the other partner is wife and mother.
Click to expand...

Most usually it is the father of the baby that pays child support for 18 years. And most often he doesnt allow anyone to adopt his baby.
 
CLAX1911 said:
But it can't work you see because they're the same sex and some people just really really really don't like that.

Lol
Click to expand...

There has already been a case where the lesbians break up, the mother of the child sues the other for child support, she is determined to have no liability whatsoever for child support and the state sues the sperm donnor for child support.
 
dixon01767 said:
That would be the case in a few states that enacted gay marriage through legislation or a referendum. For all the rest of the country it was imposed by judges that are appointed. Giving voters no say whatsoever. In many states directly in opposition to what the votes in the states had said in referendums.
Click to expand...

So what??
 
dixon01767 said:
There has already been a case where the lesbians break up, the mother of the child sues the other for child support, she is determined to have no liability whatsoever for child support and the state sues the sperm donnor for child support.
Click to expand...

:lol: Definitely a good argument for "keeping it in your pants."
 
RAMOSS said:
You have not made that case, except by insisting you don't like it.
Click to expand...

Which of these words expressed my dislike.

dixon01767 said:
That would be the case in a few states that enacted gay marriage through legislation or a referendum. For all the rest of the country it was imposed by judges that are appointed. Giving voters no say whatsoever. In many states directly in opposition to what the votes in the states had said in referendums.
Click to expand...

And youll need to string together a few words, if you can, as to how I have not made my case. When a state by referendum of the people, puts into their state Constitution an amendment limiting marriage to men and women, and appointed judges on the other side of the country decide that the state shall instead NOT so limit marriage because it discriminates against gays, that IS NOT an example where "American voters get an 'official say' on legal issues regarding matters of gay marriage" . Precisely the opposite.

Or as I suspect, do you not even have a clue as to what was being discussed and instead only have a need to respond? Just nothing relevant to respond with.
 
calamity said:
:lol: Definitely a good argument for "keeping it in your pants."
Click to expand...

To add irony, it was one of their gay male friends who put the seed into a turkey baister.
 
dixon01767 said:
Which of these words expressed my dislike.



And youll need to string together a few words, if you can, as to how I have not made my case. When a state by referendum of the people, puts into their state Constitution an amendment limiting marriage to men and women, and appointed judges on the other side of the country decide that the state shall instead NOT so limit marriage because it discriminates against gays, that IS NOT an example where "American voters get an 'official say' on legal issues regarding matters of gay marriage" . Precisely the opposite.

Or as I suspect, do you not even have a clue as to what was being discussed and instead only have a need to respond? Just nothing relevant to respond with.
Click to expand...

And, my response was 'so what'? That is a total non issue to me.
 
RAMOSS said:
And, my response was 'so what'? That is a total non issue to me.
Click to expand...

Well, evidently it is an issue to the poster i was responding to. Its not always about you. And youll need to make up your mind, Have I not made my case or is my case a non issue?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom