• 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:
No. Equal rights would involve discontinuing the discrimination between the married and unmarried. YOU are speaking of UNEQUAL rights by design. Both between the married and unmarried, AND those excluded from marriage and those who are not. Whats your justification for this purposeful discrimination?
Click to expand...

When I speak of the UNEQUAL rights between who can get married then that is what I am talking about... not your ridiculous Red Herring.
 
Da Mole said:
Get off of that insinuation and miss quote. I made a comparisons to two different sexual perversions, neither of which should be acceptable with special treatment or acceptance. This will make your day because I am going to throw beastiality into the mix too. All of which are perverted.
Click to expand...

So I was correct. You compared necrophilia to homosexuality and now are comparing homosexuality to bestiality...

It sounds like you have some daydreams that you spend a lot of time pondering...
 
Lisa said:
What special rights or treatment are LGBT adults seeking?

Animals are not humans or citizens and as such have no rights, except in Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, and/or Wales.
Click to expand...

Wales? WTF? You think that Wales is like the Deep South? :lol:

Get out and explore the world a bit.
 
vegas giants said:
Gays get married now.


The sky has not fallen
Click to expand...

Do you notice how when Roe v Wade passed, that Global Warming started getting very serious?

...and now that we have Gay Marriage, the worlds glaciers and Antarctica are melting at an increasing and alarming rate?

I am not saying that they are linked but it seems that perhaps abortion and gay marriage will lead to the end of the world.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Do you notice how when Roe v Wade passed, that Global Warming started getting very serious?

...and now that we have Gay Marriage, the worlds glaciers and Antarctica are melting at an increasing and alarming rate?

I am not saying that they are linked but it seems that perhaps abortion and gay marriage will lead to the end of the world.
Click to expand...

Oh my god...
 
Bodhisattva said:
The Welsh don't joke around...
Click to expand...

You need to learn to laugh,
If being Welsh makes me a sheep shagger, a miner, an idiot with a stupid accent, gullible, thick and a down right fool then I proudly accept ALL of those stereotypes because I will never deny my root or what people believe to be my roots.
Click to expand...
Urban Dictionary
 
Tanngrisnir said:
The two have nothing to do with each other and well before the courts ever stepped in marriage and children didn't have anything to do with each other than peripherally.
.
Click to expand...

Quotes from 20th century cases show that's not true.

"It is not surprising that the decision to marry has been placed on the same level of importance as decisions relating to procreation, childbirth, child rearing, and family relationships. . . .

It would make little sense to recognize a right of privacy with respect to other matters of family life and not with respect to the decision to enter the relationship that is the foundation of the family in our society... And, if appellee's right to procreate means anything at all, it must imply some right to enter the only relationship in which the State of Wisconsin allows sexual relations legally to take place."

We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.


The institution of marriage as a union man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis...

"Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." This historic institution manifestly is more deeply founded than the asserted contemporary concept of marriage and societal interests for which petitioners contend. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a charter for restructuring it by judicial legislation


In addition, within limits, a statute generally does not fail rational basis review on the grounds of over- or under-inclusiveness; classification does not fail rational-basis review because it is not made with mathematical nicety or because in practice it results in some inequity.;...

Under this standard, DOMA is constitutional because the legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to survival of the human race, and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by the childrens biological parents. Allowing same-sex couples to marry does not, in the legislatures view, further these purposes.....

Nearly all United States Supreme Court decisions declaring marriage to be a fundamental right expressly link marriage to fundamental rights of procreation, childbirth, abortion, and child-rearing....

But as Skinner, Loving, and Zablocki indicate, marriage is traditionally linked to procreation and survival of the human race. Heterosexual couples are the only couples who can produce biological offspring of the couple....


And the link between opposite-sex marriage and procreation is not defeated by the fact that the law allows opposite-sex marriage regardless of a couples willingness or ability to procreate. The facts that all opposite-sex couples do not have children and that single-sex couples raise children and have children with third party assistance or through adoption do not mean that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples lacks a rational basis. Such over- or under-inclusiveness does not defeat finding a rational basis....


Webster's New International Dictionary, Second Edition, defines marriage as follows:

"A state of being married, or being united to a person or persons of the opposite sex as husband or wife; also, the mutual relation of husband and wife; wedlock; abstractly, the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence, for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family."

The Century Dictionary and Encyclopedia defines marriage as:

"The legal union of a man with a woman for life; the state or condition of being married; the legal relation of spouses to each other; wedlock; the formal declaration or contract by which a man and a woman join in wedlock."

Black's Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, defines marriage as:"The civil status, condition or relation of one man and one woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex."

It appears to us that appellants are prevented from marrying, not by the statutes of Kentucky or the refusal of the County Court Clerk of Jefferson County to issue them a license, but rather by their own incapability of entering into a marriage as that term is defined....
In substance, the relationship proposed by the appellants does not authorize the issuance of a marriage license because what they propose is not a marriage.
Click to expand...
 
dixon01767 said:
I was referring to your comments regarding



And didn't see where you were speaking of "UNEQUAL rights".
Click to expand...

I hope that you are trying to play word games... just know that if this is the case (and I sure hope it is for you) that you are failing.
 
roguenuke said:
Biology doesnt work that way. Pieces dont need to fit for same sex relationships to be normal.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


When you make up the rules you can make anything normal by your pretend standards. Pieces don't need to fit for same sex relationships to be normal because it's not normal.
 
Integrityrespec said:
When you make up the rules you can make anything normal by your pretend standards. Pieces don't need to fit for same sex relationships to be normal because it's not normal.
Click to expand...
They are normal because they normally exist within not only humanity but also nature.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
Da Mole said:
Apples and oranges. Interracial or mixing of the races (man and women) has nothing to do with gay same sex.
Click to expand...
Interracial marriage has just as much to do with same sex marriage as cousins getting married or interfaith marriages. All are marriages that are or have been restricted, somewhere, for some reason. All involve religious tenements against them (except perhaps cousins, which is interesting, since those are the only ones that have even a close to valid biological reason for restricting).

Now, interracial and same sex have the most in common when it comes to legal battles. Both were fought and won complete equality via the courts rather than getting all laws changed. Both were said to be harmful to children. Both had people coming up with excuses for why those who wanted into those marriages shouldn't be allowed. Both had huge groups of religious people, in this country mainly Christians, fighting against them, using verses from the Bible to defend keeping the laws in place.

Same sex marriage has some differences though. It has been accepted much faster. It can easily be argued that cousin marriage laws prove the arguments against same sex marriage wrong.

Note how you never actually addressed, answered what was requested. I'll rephrase. What travesties have or do you see befalling us by allowing same sex couples to marry?

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
Integrityrespec said:
When you make up the rules you can make anything normal by your pretend standards. Pieces don't need to fit for same sex relationships to be normal because it's not normal.
Click to expand...

They said that about interracial marriage too.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Nah, sorry. That doesn't support your asinine assertion. Throughout history, and still today, marriage is about contractual property rights.

Please try harder.
Click to expand...

From BC Roman law-

Mater semper certa est ("The mother is always certain")
"pater semper incertus est" ("The father is always uncertain")
"pater est, quem nuptiae demonstrant" ("father is to whom marriage points")....

"matrimonium was then an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man took a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he might have children by her."

and even still today-

Sec. 160.204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY. (a) A man is presumed to be the father of a child if:

(1) he is married to the mother of the child and the child is born during the marriage;


If it were about contract rights it would be open to any two consenting adults who desire to make such a contract. But still today, closely related couples are excluded because they might procreate with unfavorable genetic results.
 
Bodhisattva said:
I hope that you are trying to play word games... just know that if this is the case (and I sure hope it is for you) that you are failing.
Click to expand...

No word games. You are again confused. You state

Bodhisattva said:
When I speak of the UNEQUAL rights …...
Click to expand...

And yet I can use the forum search function and see that you haven't spoken of "unequal" ANYTHING since December 4, 2019 and that was regarding a completely unrelated topic. I think you get lost as you grasp about for refuge in a strawman.
 
dixon01767 said:
From BC Roman law-

Mater semper certa est ("The mother is always certain")
"pater semper incertus est" ("The father is always uncertain")
"pater est, quem nuptiae demonstrant" ("father is to whom marriage points")....

"matrimonium was then an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man took a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he might have children by her."

and even still today-

Sec. 160.204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY. (a) A man is presumed to be the father of a child if:

(1) he is married to the mother of the child and the child is born during the marriage;


If it were about contract rights it would be open to any two consenting adults who desire to make such a contract. But still today, closely related couples are excluded because they might procreate with unfavorable genetic results.
Click to expand...

The child was considered property too in both Roman times and in common law..

I am too lazy to read all ya’ll’s recent posts for the total context, but....

It is my understanding that the mainstream view is marriage and property rights both became a thing with the invention of agriculture..

Tribal societies and hunter gather types do not have marriage universally... it might even be the extreme among tribal types and in pre-history..


The thought is that settling down to farm created a desire for private property.. Then private property created the desire to hand down inheritances and build fences..

Creating the “nuclear family” concept.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
dixon01767 said:
No word games. You are again confused. You state



And yet I can use the forum search function and see that you haven't spoken of "unequal" ANYTHING since December 4, 2019 and that was regarding a completely unrelated topic. I think you get lost as you grasp about for refuge in a strawman.
Click to expand...

That is not definitive..

There are probably a dozen ways to say equal rights that would
T have shown up in your search..

Not saying either way, just that doesn’t prove much


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
ArtemisBarca said:
The child was considered property too in both Roman times and in common law..

I am too lazy to read all ya’ll’s recent posts for the total context, but....

It is my understanding that the mainstream view is marriage and property rights both became a thing with the invention of agriculture..

Tribal societies and hunter gather types do not have marriage universally... it might even be the extreme among tribal types and in pre-history..


The thought is that settling down to farm created a desire for private property.. Then private property created the desire to hand down inheritances and build fences..

Creating the “nuclear family” concept.


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

Only men and women could create a nuclear family.
 
ArtemisBarca said:
That is not definitive..

There are probably a dozen ways to say equal rights that would
T have shown up in your search..

Not saying either way, just that doesn’t prove much


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

The quoted term is "UNEQUAL" rights, not equal rights. The post of his I was responding to spoke of "EQUAL rights"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom