• 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.
ArtemisBarca said:
for sure...

Because the “nuclear” family is specifically defined as man, woman and 2.5 kids..

I don’t know what your point would be by that..

That is like saying a gay couple “can never be a heterosexual couple”..
Click to expand...

No its saying homosexual couples don't procreate. A gay man and a gay or lesbian woman procreate just fine.
 
There's a lot I could say about this topic (and I had a long drawn out statement I was going to post until I accidentally deleted it a minute ago), but I just want to ask this: what exactly are the merits and reasoning for not accepting fact that gay people exist in the world and live their lives the way they want?

Further, so long as they aren't hurting themselves (and no I don't consider simply being gay or having safe gay sex is hurting oneself) or hurting others, then what does it matter?
 
Bodhisattva said:
All of it... probably because your use of English sucks and the posts you are quoting do not seem to go together.


I asked you what laws of discrimination are you making up that I supposedly advocate and you respond with "Both between the married and unmarried, AND those excluded from marriage and those who are not." and you ask me why I don't understand you? :lol:
Click to expand...

There are literally 1000s of laws that discriminate between married and unmarried couples. Are you going to continue with the stupid act and pretend you are not aware of any of them? For purpose of discussion lets use the exemption from estate taxes upon the death of one of a married couple, not available to unmarried couples. Did you have some point you wanted to make about this discrimination in the law or just stupid questions unrelated to any relevant point in an attempt to hide the fact that you have nothing relevant to contribute?
 
CBuckets said:
There's a lot I could say about this topic (and I had a long drawn out statement I was going to post until I accidentally deleted it a minute ago), but I just want to ask this: what exactly are the merits and reasoning for not accepting fact that gay people exist in the world and live their lives the way they want?
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone denies their existence and no one is preventing them from living their lives the way they want. They don't need the tax breaks and governmental entitlements of marriage to live their lives the way they want and they don't need any guarantees on the provision of wedding cakes in order to live their lives.
 
dixon01767 said:
There are literally 1000s of laws that discriminate between married and unmarried couples. Are you going to continue with the stupid act and pretend you are not aware of any of them? For purpose of discussion lets use the exemption from estate taxes upon the death of one of a married couple, not available to unmarried couples. Did you have some point you wanted to make about this discrimination in the law or just stupid questions unrelated to any relevant point in an attempt to hide the fact that you have nothing relevant to contribute?
Click to expand...

As a matter of hypothesis: civil unions/domestic partnerships could have actually been a valid legal method to give gay couples the same rights as married couples. But in practice it never was going to work because states were never going to give the EXACT same set of legal protocols/privileges/benefits of marriage to civil unions/domestic partnerships. As a matter of hypothesis it was entirely feasible but as a matter of practice it was impossible because it was so low priority for politicians and a number of politicians opposed even civil unions. It would have also taken a massive amount of legislating that would have taken years and years to implement but it COULD have been done. But this is all irrelevant now.
 
CBuckets said:
There's a lot I could say about this topic (and I had a long drawn out statement I was going to post until I accidentally deleted it a minute ago), but I just want to ask this: what exactly are the merits and reasoning for not accepting fact that gay people exist in the world and live their lives the way they want?

Further, so long as they aren't hurting themselves (and no I don't consider simply being gay or having safe gay sex is hurting oneself) or hurting others, then what does it matter?
Click to expand...

It makes dixon feel icky
 
dixon01767 said:
What part didn't you understand?
Click to expand...

What consenting heterosexual adult partners are being excluded from marriage? Can LGBT people legally marry animals, close relatives or inanimate objects that you seem to have a fetish for?
 
dixon01767 said:
I don't think anyone denies their existence and no one is preventing them from living their lives the way they want. They don't need the tax breaks and governmental entitlements of marriage to live their lives the way they want and they don't need any guarantees on the provision of wedding cakes in order to live their lives.
Click to expand...

They may or may not need the tax breaks of marriage, but they certainly might need joint health care coverage from employers. Or joint custody of any children. Or anything pertaining to written wills and property.
 
dixon01767 said:
No its saying homosexual couples don't procreate. A gay man and a gay or lesbian woman procreate just fine.
Click to expand...
How many times do you plan to trot out this threadbare claim that has been debunked?

Marriage is not about procreation unless you can prove that heterosexuals have been required to pass a fertility test as a condition of receiving a marriage license, and then produce offspring within a mandated amount of time or the state annulled their marriage?

When and where were women over the age of 55 and men who had a vasectomy denied a marriage license?
 
dixon01767 said:
Gay guys can close their eyes and imagine the vagina before them is instead some hot boy butt.
Click to expand...

Is that a common fantasy for you?

A marriage is more than about having sex.
 
dixon01767 said:
No its saying homosexual couples don't procreate. A gay man and a gay or lesbian woman procreate just fine.
Click to expand...

Lesbians have sperm donors and gay men can use surrogacy.

A gay man and a lesbian entering into a marriage would have it annulled by the state because the contract was based on false pretenses.
 
CBuckets said:
They may or may not need the tax breaks of marriage, but they certainly might need joint health care coverage from employers. Or joint custody of any children. Or anything pertaining to written wills and property.
Click to expand...

That would apply to any two consenting adults who desire the tax breaks of marriage,... joint health care coverage from employers. Or joint custody of any children. Or anything pertaining to written wills and property. What would be the justification for such discrimination? I know a life long couple in their 60s, together since their teens, 3 grown kids. She is an enthusiastic feminist and atheist that views marriage as some evil patriarchal institution imposed by religion to empower men over women. What justification does government have to discriminate against them for all those benefits you speak of. If government wants to discriminate they must have some justification for doing so.
 
Lisa said:
A marriage is more than about having sex.
Click to expand...

OH NO! That might mean that gay people have the capability of feeling love and emotion too! We can't have that! It'll destroy the carefully built perception of them being mindless sex robots that we've worked so hard to make!
 
dixon01767 said:
That would apply to any two consenting adults who desire the tax breaks of marriage,... joint health care coverage from employers. Or joint custody of any children. Or anything pertaining to written wills and property. What would be the justification for such discrimination? I know a life long couple in their 60s, together since their teens, 3 grown kids. She is an enthusiastic feminist and atheist that views marriage as some evil patriarchal institution imposed by religion to empower men over women. What justification does government have to discriminate against them for all those benefits you speak of. If government wants to discriminate they must have some justification for doing so.
Click to expand...

None. The government should not discriminate against them.


Let them all get married



Problem solved
 
Lisa said:
Lesbians have sperm donors and gay men can use surrogacy.
Click to expand...

That's at the most ONE of the gay couple and a third person procreating. Not the gay couple. And while heterosexual sex has a tendency to lead to procreation, homosexual sex has no tendency to lead to surrogacy or sperm donors.

Lisa said:
A gay man and a lesbian entering into a marriage would have it annulled by the state because the contract was based on false pretenses.
Click to expand...

Only if one of them wanted to and could prove they weren't fully aware. Doesn't really seem relevant when anyone can get a divorce.
 
vegas giants said:
None. The government should not discriminate against them.


Let them all get married



Problem solved
Click to expand...

That just leaves the discrimination between the married and unmarried. Whats the justification?
 
dixon01767 said:
What justification does government have to discriminate against them for all those benefits you speak of. If government wants to discriminate they must have some justification for doing so.
Click to expand...

Simple. They don't want what the government is offering them. By definition, someone (or in this case the government) can't be discriminating against you if you are refusing that person's offer. If the government says it is offering a certain benefit to everyone who asks, but then refuses to give that benefit to you when you ask and says that it isn't offering that benefit to you for X arbitrary reason, then that would be discrimination.
 
dixon01767 said:
That's at the most ONE of the gay couple and a third person procreating. Not the gay couple. And while heterosexual sex has a tendency to lead to procreation, homosexual sex has no tendency to lead to surrogacy or sperm donors.



Only if one of them wanted to and could prove they weren't fully aware. It doesn't really seem relevant when anyone can get a divorce.
Click to expand...
Many heterosexual couples also utilize sperm donors, artificial insemination, and surrogacy when there are fertility issues.

I am a heterosexual female and I haven't successfully procreated since the end of the Reagan administration, despite the fact that I am quite sexually active. There are things called birth control pills and IUDs.

Are you also opposed to divorce?
 
dixon01767 said:
That just leaves the discrimination between the married and unmarried. Whats the justification?
Click to expand...

It's not discrimination by definition. If you refuse a slice of cake offered to you, then that person isn't discriminating against you. You are just choosing to not have the benefit of eating the delicious cake. Now if everyone is being offered delicious cake except to you and you want a slice of cake, then there is reason to believe you are being discriminated.
 
dixon01767 said:
No its saying homosexual couples don't procreate. A gay man and a gay or lesbian woman procreate just fine.
Click to expand...

Fair enough..

My point is that you are subjectively applying a negative or positive meaning to the term..

Nothing stopping the dad from a nuclear family being a child molester..


Nuclear family kinda means what is the base/starting/boiled down to its base parts of a set up for a family...

Aka a male , female and the child/children they made..

Obviously a step/grandparent/Gay modern family would be a far better option than a child molester nuclear family..

It is called a false equivalency


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom