• 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

AmIsraelHai said:
My problem is not the homosexual them self. The freal problem is when the try to change the society, for example adopting kids. A child needs a mom and a dad. Not 2 dads where one of them thinks he is a she.
Click to expand...

Would you be in favor of a law that required that, if one parent died, the child be taken away from the other parent and placed in a foster home with a married man and a woman until the child's biological parent got remarried?
 
dixon01767 said:
Marriages limitation to men and women was never about changing homosexuals into heterosexuals.
Click to expand...

what was it about?

and why should we discriminate against people based on gender again in order to go back to it?
 
AmIsraelHai said:
My problem is not the homosexual them self. The freal problem is when the try to change the society, for example adopting kids. A child needs a mom and a dad. Not 2 dads where one of them thinks he is a she.
Click to expand...

how did you determine 1 moms and dad are needed?

and who told you being a gay man makes you think your a woman?
 
Last edited:
AmIsraelHai said:
It doesn't change anything... in order to have kids, we need men and women. Without one of them, there is no more life. Why would ruin the creation?
Click to expand...

It destroys your argument. Homosexuality occurs in nature, therefore it is natural. Now you're changing the goalposts.

Nothing is being ruined. I don't know if you've checked, but humanity isn't dying out anytime soon. We are a small minority that makes up around 10% of the population. If anything, more people need to adopt kids instead of having some, because we are overpopulated.
 
AmIsraelHai said:
My problem is not the homosexual them self. The freal problem is when the try to change the society, for example adopting kids. A child needs a mom and a dad. Not 2 dads where one of them thinks he is a she.
Click to expand...

Which is utterly and completely irrelevant to the issue of gay marriage.

Which is legal. And shall remain so.

That causes great pain to some people, and I enjoy the fact that it does.
 
TheGoverness said:
Homosexuality occurs in nature. In hundreds of different species.
Click to expand...

Homosexual behavior occurs in several species. Homosexuality as an inherent trait of the individual is purely a human invention. Remember Roy and Silo, the gay penguins that spawned childrens books about homosexuality? Silo is making babies with his new girlfriend.
 
Last edited:
lwf said:
Would you be in favor of a law that required that, if one parent died, the child be taken away from the other parent and placed in a foster home with a married man and a woman until the child's biological parent got remarried?
Click to expand...

Come on, you can't compare that situation.....its totally different
 
blarg said:
what was it about?

and why should we discriminate against people based on gender again in order to go back to it?
Click to expand...

dixon01767 said:
It improves the wellbeing of children that only a heterosexual coupling produces. Children born to single mothers have a higher rate of poverty, juvenile delinquincy, drug and alcohol abuse, teen pregnancy, HS dropouts and criminal conviction as an adult..
Click to expand...

Im the one advocating we make marriage available to any two consenting adults not already married. You know, equal treatment under the law as opposed to special exceptions for homosexuals, because they are so special.
 
TheGoverness said:
It destroys your argument. Homosexuality occurs in nature, therefore it is natural. Now you're changing the goalposts.

Nothing is being ruined. I don't know if you've checked, but humanity isn't dying out anytime soon. We are a small minority that makes up around 10% of the population. If anything, more people need to adopt kids instead of having some, because we are overpopulated.
Click to expand...

If it occurs it doesn't means its right. There's murders that occurs in nature, and rapists. What occurs in our life, doesn't justify the action right.
 
dixon01767 said:
Homosexual behavior occurs in several species. Homosexuality as an inherent trait of the individual is purely a human invention.
Click to expand...

No, not several. Hundreds. 450 to be exact.

Homosexuality is not a "human invention", that's a gigantically false statement. The term is, what is being described is absolutely not.

Remember Roy and Silo, they gay penguins that spawned childrens books about homosexuality? Silo is making babies with his new girlfriend.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how this contradicts the homosexual behavior that as occured in nature?
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Which is utterly and completely irrelevant to the issue of gay marriage.

Which is legal. And shall remain so.

That causes great pain to some people, and I enjoy the fact that it does.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with marriage, my issue its when the touch kids.
 
AmIsraelHai said:
If it occurs it doesn't means its right. There's murders that occurs in nature, and rapists. What occurs in our life, doesn't justify the action right.
Click to expand...

That's not what I said. I'm specifically saying this is because you are denying it as natural, when in fact it is. And being gay does not harm anyone else's well-being, so calling it morally repugnant is ridiculous. But of course you've got plenty of backwards right-wing folks (like yourself), that still hold bigoted feelings against same-sex individuals. It's cool. The anti-gay voices are getting softer every day here in the US. Even conservatives are coming around (albeit very slowly).
 
blarg said:
how did you determine 1 moms and dad are needed?
Click to expand...

Prefered. By comparing the wellbeing of children born to their married mother and father with children born instead to single mothers. They have higher rates of poverty, juvenile delinquincy, alcohol and drug abuse, teen pregnancy, HS dropouts and criminal conviction as an adult.
 
TheGoverness said:
That's not what I said. I'm specifically saying this is because you are denying it as natural, when in fact it is. And being gay does not harm anyone else's well-being, so calling it morally repugnant is ridiculous. But of course you've got plenty of backwards right-wing folks (like yourself), that still hold bigoted feelings against same-sex individuals. It's cool. The anti-gay voices are getting softer every day here in the US. Even conservatives are coming around (albeit very slowly).
Click to expand...

How can things be called natural when you change the nature????? The nature is created within humans and animals, as a male and female. HOW EXACTLY HOMOSEXUALITY IS NATURAL WHEN ITS TOTALLY CHANGES EVERYTHING????
 
AmIsraelHai said:
How can things be called natural when you change the nature????? The nature is created within humans and animals, as a male and female. HOW EXACTLY HOMOSEXUALITY IS NATURAL WHEN ITS TOTALLY CHANGES EVERYTHING????
Click to expand...

Nobody is "changing" the nature, buddy. You somehow thinking that it is, just shows your horribly misinformed stance on this topic.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Wait, wut? So you only care when homosexuals 'touch kids'?

Am I reading you right?
Click to expand...

I only care when people change society and trying to "rebuild" the impossible which is nature!
 
CLAX1911 said:
As far as the right and left dichotomy I think it's an oversimplification to save people on the right are for status quo and people on the left are for progress.

As far as politics in the United States the way it used to be at least, the left and the right had the same goals they just disagreed on now to achieve them. Now it seems these two sides have different goals or different divisions for what our country should be. I would think it would be wrong to call either one of them progress or status quo. Progress will only be made if we all agree on the goal which we intend to progress toward.

Making sure that no one Stars making sure that people are treated equally making sure we don't fall to a foreign power these are all things that we should progress toward. and I don't think anybody would disagree with this outside of a few Fringe types. So in that regard we're all progressive.

Progressive is the view that the future will be better and taking action to make it better.
Click to expand...

You are of course right to say that, characterising conservatism as being focussed on the status quo, is a simplification. However this is often the case in discussing political ideologies, which are complex. However I wouldn't say it's inaccurate.

I think it is important to make the distinction between "conservatism" (a political theory) and "people on the right" (people). The former is an ideology which has a broadly agreed definition, the latter is a group of people in a given nation whose views and goals are changeable.

When you get into American politics, it gets even more complicated. The colloquial "liberal" in the US is very different from the actual political ideology of liberalism (at least as understood in academia).
This is true for other political terms, like socialism and conservatism.

So when an American says he is a liberal or a conservative, he often doesn't really mean this in terms of the textbook ideology, but may mean "I support the republican party" or "I support the democrat party", or "I am on the right of American politics" etc.

So whilst it is certainly accurate that (American) "conservatives" may not be focussed on retaining the status quo, conservativism (the ideology) is about just that. And yes, that's simplifying!
 
dixon01767 said:
Prefered. By comparing the wellbeing of children born to their married mother and father with children born instead to single mothers. They have higher rates of poverty, juvenile delinquincy, alcohol and drug abuse, teen pregnancy, HS dropouts and criminal conviction as an adult.
Click to expand...

seems like you should compare to 2 parents of the same gender in this case
 
dixon01767 said:
Im the one advocating we make marriage available to any two consenting adults not already married. You know, equal treatment under the law as opposed to special exceptions for homosexuals, because they are so special.
Click to expand...

seems like you should compare to 2 parents of the same gender

what special exceptions if a woman can marry you why cant i?
 
AmIsraelHai said:
How can things be called natural when you change the nature????? The nature is created within humans and animals, as a male and female. HOW EXACTLY HOMOSEXUALITY IS NATURAL WHEN ITS TOTALLY CHANGES EVERYTHING????
Click to expand...

did anyone change people to make them gay? seems to be ther nature


by occurring without anyone scheming to make it so that's how homosexuality is natural

if you know natural is not good or bad why do you bring nature up?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom