• 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:
I only care when people change society and trying to "rebuild" the impossible which is nature!
Click to expand...

no worries then peel can be gay they can marry someone of the same gender and raise kids

most people who worry about that seem to worry because they know its possible and it bugs them for some reason
 
blarg said:
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?
Click to expand...

That is the problem, being gay is not natural, its a CHOICE!
People aren't born gays.
 
AmIsraelHai said:
That is the problem, being gay is not natural, its a CHOICE!
People aren't born gays.
Click to expand...

who told you its not natural and a choice i never got that choice

did you have to fill out some paperwork to be attracted to the sex you like?

dosent seem natural even if you go hetero sexual
 
JPUK said:
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!
Click to expand...

Well I still would say American conservativism it's not interested in the status quo. They want to secure the border, they want the government to spend less money and therefore take less money from taxpayers. the status quo is acceptable but it certainly isn't ideal. In their own way they are progressive, it's just progressive with gun ownership liberties, border security and fiduciary responsibility.
 
blarg said:
who told you its not natural and a choice i never got that choice

did you have to fill out some paperwork to be attracted to the sex you like?

dosent seem natural even if you go hetero sexual
Click to expand...

He hasn't even read his own research. Like half of what he posted contradicts his unfounded position. The rest are biased sources from Christian institutions.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Well I still would say American conservativism it's not interested in the status quo. They want to secure the border, they want the government to spend less money and therefore take less money from taxpayers. the status quo is acceptable but it certainly isn't ideal. In their own way they are progressive, it's just progressive with gun ownership liberties, border security and fiduciary responsibility.
Click to expand...

I'm not disagreeing with you. It's really a semantic point. 'American conservatives' ≠ 'conservatism' (which is a political ideology with a definition).
 
blarg said:
seems like you should compare to 2 parents of the same gender in this case
Click to expand...

Biological parents arent preferred because they are of the opposite sex and are instead preferred because they are the only two people in the world obligated by the birth of a child to provide and care for the child. And the alternative is most frequently a single mother on her own with an absent or unknown father.
 
JPUK said:
I'm not disagreeing with you. It's really a semantic point. 'American conservatives' ≠ 'conservatism' (which is a political ideology with a definition).
Click to expand...

Will American conservatives define at their own way and that is how word meanings change.
 
dixon01767 said:
Biological parents arent preferred because they are of the opposite sex and are instead preferred because they are the only two people in the world obligated by the birth of a child to provide and care for the child. And the alternative is most frequently a single mother on her own with an absent or unknown father.
Click to expand...

seems like all couples who adopt are in that boat why single out same sex couples for different treatment?
 
CLAX1911 said:
Tell if a person that is dating someone who adopts a child and decides not stop dating that person they have to pay child support?
Click to expand...

Well, I assume you changed the facts to where now only one person has adopted the child. AND if they had been married instead of dating, STILL the marriage doesnt obligate her husband and no child support would be due if they got a divorce. You people keep comng up with all these different situations, and in every one of them a marriage would make absolutely no difference as to the obligations to kids.
 
blarg said:
seems like all couples who adopt are in that boat why single out same sex couples for different treatment?
Click to expand...

Rather hypocritical to have argued that marriage has nothing to do with procreation because we allowed infertile couples to marry, and then insist gays be included on the offhand chance they might choose to adopt. Heterosexual sex has a natural tendency to lead to procreation. Homosexual sex has no tendency to lead to adoption.
 
dixon01767 said:
Well, I assume you changed the facts to where now only one person has adopted the child.
Click to expand...
I didn't change any facts I'm not capable of doing that.

AND if they had been married instead of dating, STILL the marriage doesnt obligate her husband and no child support would be due if they got a divorce. You people keep comng up with all these different situations, and in every one of them a marriage would make absolutely no difference as to the obligations to kids.
Click to expand...
a marriage in general makes no difference to the obligation to children.

If you have a child with a woman if you are not married to her you're still obligated to that child. Marriage has no bearing on it whatsoever.
 
dixon01767 said:
Rather hypocritical to have argued that marriage has nothing to do with procreation because we allowed infertile couples to marry, and then insist gays be included on the offhand chance they might choose to adopt. Heterosexual sex has a natural tendency to lead to procreation. Homosexual sex has no tendency to lead to adoption.
Click to expand...

well as we dont require children in marriages or the ability to make them it would be hypocritical of you to only let them marry in the hopes they adopt

they should continue to be able to get married even if they never want to adopt same as anyone else
 
blarg said:
who told you its not natural and a choice i never got that choice

did you have to fill out some paperwork to be attracted to the sex you like?

dosent seem natural even if you go hetero sexual
Click to expand...

Most people have an overwhelming biological drive that compells an attraction to the opposite sex and likely hinders any developement of an attraction to the same sex. Some people, to varying degrees dont develope this attraction, which allows an attraction to the same sex to develope. It does not dictate it. If 95% of the population has a biological drive to eat nutricious food, while 5% eat dirt, I wouldnt jump to the conclusion that their desire to eat dirt is driven by a biological drive.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Will American conservatives define at their own way and that is how word meanings change.
Click to expand...

Yeah I'm not sure you're understanding my point. As I say, I am not disagreeing with you. Conservatism is an established term in the study of politics. Americans who identify as conservatives may well have non-conservative views, in the textbook sense. This is all entirely fine and normal and I am not criticising it. Just like American "liberals" often don't actually subscribe to liberalism.

You're not wrong to say that people in America who identify as conservative may not be in favour of the status quo. I was merely clarifying that actually I wasn't referring to those people, I was referring to conservatism in the context of left-right politics. You seem to think I'm arguing with you, I'm not, and you could learn something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom