• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

gay marriage...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Gay marriage

Homosexuality is by very definition abnormal.
 
Re: Gay marriage

shuamort said:
Now, I'm curious, where am I being impartial? You do realize that I'm the "gay moderator", right?

Well, that's a good thing. I'd hate to think that all moderators were unhappy.:2funny:
 
Re: Gay marriage

Zyphlin said:
First off, please show me proof its been "scientifically proven" that it is only something born into? I am curious here

Second off, I think "marrige" as a term should be pulled completely from the government. I believe that the government should simply replace all terms of "marrige" in its laws with "union". By presenting a note from a religious organization stating you are "married" is one way to apply for a "union" under the government. Having a "civil union" under the government...be it straight or gay, but basically between any two consenting people...is another way for a "union" to happen.

Marrige should be a religious institution, and as such, should not be forced to change from how it is. Marrige, in the religious terms, IS between a man and woman. HOWEVER, because the government uses the term as well, it gets sticky. This is why I think the government should replace the word marrige with union in its laws.

This way any two consenting people that wish to live and spend the rest of thier life together can get the tax breaks and benifits under the law that make life easier for them. However it doens't infringe upon the "sanctity" or religious marrige.

If homosexuals still demand...even if that happened...to be allowed to marry, then that is simply trying to change religion and they can do it through the religious people and not the government as its not the governments place to regulate religion.

Personally I think that is the best option. I do not believe homosexuals should be able to enter into a christian marrige, however I DO believe they should gain the benifits of a civil union under the law.

The polygamoy quesiton is a good one though, i'll think on that

Seriously. Reposting this. ANYONE ((besides the one that predicted no one would respond to it because it is sensible)) want to give like...any kind of opinion on it?
 
Re: Gay marriage

Zyphlin said:
Seriously. Reposting this. ANYONE ((besides the one that predicted no one would respond to it because it is sensible)) want to give like...any kind of opinion on it?


First part. It's still undecided what makes people gay. Genetics, biology, happenings during pregnancy, environmental factors, or a combination of some or all of them. There are new pieces of information that are coming out that are leaning towards genetics and biology however.

Second part. Marriages/civil unions/civil marriages. Long story short, I think it'd be OK with me personally to use any of the labels to apply to what the government recognizes between two consenting adults.

Calling marriage between gays doesn't have the government affecting religion anymore than it does when two atheists get married through the government. Since the government allows atheists to get married and that's not affecting religion, neither should gay marriage. Moreover, since gay people can be religious as well, why should they be denied the proper term, especially if their religion supports the marriage? It would seem at that point that the government would be interfering with the religion.

I've seen some people in past debates counter with the fact that they don't want to have to change the terminology of their relationship from marriage to a civil union. Personal preference I reckon.

The French government have a good plan to eschew all of the problems here. One must get married by the government in a civil marriage (which could just be signing the form together) before having a religious marriage ceremony. The civil marriage is the binding one and the only one that the government cares about. The religious marriage ceremony is for those that feel they need/want/ must have it.
 
Why,why not?

Marriage is a instution for one man and woman.Marriage provides a envirmoent which a child can have both a mother and father.The father teaches the child how men are supposed to behave and the mother teaches the child how women are supposed to behave.Over the years due to no fault divorce and other liberal policies marriage has basicly been weakened as a institution in this country.Hollywood bastardizes marriage everyday with joke marriages.I beleave divorce should have serious consiquences such as imprisonment.
What's your thoughts?

I am against gay marriage,civil unions and domestic partnerships.Marriage should only be reserved those who meet the requirements for marriage instead of changing the definition and what marriage is.
 
Mod Note.

Merged with the other thread.
 
Re: Gay marriage

Zyphlin said:
Originally Posted by Zyphlin


First off, please show me proof its been "scientifically proven" that it is only something born into? I am curious here

Second off, I think "marrige" as a term should be pulled completely from the government. I believe that the government should simply replace all terms of "marrige" in its laws with "union". By presenting a note from a religious organization stating you are "married" is one way to apply for a "union" under the government. Having a "civil union" under the government...be it straight or gay, but basically between any two consenting people...is another way for a "union" to happen.

Marrige should be a religious institution, and as such, should not be forced to change from how it is. Marrige, in the religious terms, IS between a man and woman. HOWEVER, because the government uses the term as well, it gets sticky. This is why I think the government should replace the word marrige with union in its laws.

This way any two consenting people that wish to live and spend the rest of thier life together can get the tax breaks and benifits under the law that make life easier for them. However it doens't infringe upon the "sanctity" or religious marrige.

If homosexuals still demand...even if that happened...to be allowed to marry, then that is simply trying to change religion and they can do it through the religious people and not the government as its not the governments place to regulate religion.

Personally I think that is the best option. I do not believe homosexuals should be able to enter into a christian marrige, however I DO believe they should gain the benifits of a civil union under the law.

The polygamoy quesiton is a good one though, i'll think on that

Personally, I view that as a viable "option B." The reason that it is not my first choice is that it would be so time consuming to have to change all the laws in all the books. Our congressmen and senators, both state and federal have enough on their plates to try and change 200+ years of law. They need to concentrate on current issues instead changing old laws.

So, I would be for having the court system decide if Christianity has some sort of legal ownership of the term marriage much like Trump with "you're fired" or Paris Hilton with "That's hot." If the courts deems them to have a legal right to the word, then we go to "option B." If not, we change to laws to expand equality to more American and provide the queer community the right to marry whomever they want to spend the rest of their lives with.
 
Marriage is a instution for one man and woman.Marriage provides a envirmoent which a child can have both a mother and father.The father teaches the child how men are supposed to behave and the mother teaches the child how women are supposed to behave.Over the years due to no fault divorce and other liberal policies marriage has basicly been weakened as a institution in this country.Hollywood bastardizes marriage everyday with joke marriages.I beleave divorce should have serious consiquences such as imprisonment.

Sure, we'll imprison all the people who have the divorces and won't them vote. Then the liberals will be winning elections.

The idea that a child needs a mother and father is ridicolous. Single parents or same sex parents have been shown to be just as capable as heterosexual parents.

Marriage in the past has included homosexual relationships. For example in some Native American Tribes, Rome, and Egypt. If you're only talking about America then you must think that interracial marriage should still be illegal.
 
Re: Gay marriage

Zyphlin said:
Seriously. Reposting this. ANYONE ((besides the one that predicted no one would respond to it because it is sensible)) want to give like...any kind of opinion on it?

I am in total agreement with this. See post #13 for the extended answer.
 
jamesrage said:
Over the years due to no fault divorce and other liberal policies marriage has basicly been weakened as a institution in this country.Hollywood bastardizes marriage everyday with joke marriages.I beleave divorce should have serious consiquences such as imprisonment.

Why should we punish people for getting a divorce? Trying to lessen a problem by simply illegalising it is not always the answer.

jamesrage said:
I am against gay marriage,civil unions and domestic partnerships.Marriage should only be reserved those who meet the requirements for marriage instead of changing the definition and what marriage is.

What are the requirements for marriage? And what is the problem of expanding the definition oif marriage?
 
Re: homo marriage...

The same problem of expanding marriage for pedophiles, zoophiles and necrophiles and coprophiles........all other types of sex other than hetero are perverse, and that is why us heteros refuse to recognize homosexuality as a legitimate behavior, and THAT is exactly why homos wants to force the issue on us hets, you want to force us to legitimize your perverse lifestyle, and because we refuse, you attack us and our indtitutions of marriage, family, free speech and religion...pretty intolerant of all you bigoted homofascists!
 
Re: Gay marriage

MrFungus420 said:
I agree, why not polygamy? If it's between consenting adults who want to form a larger family unit, why not.

Can you give any reason not to allow it?


First Off What ****ing right does the government have over marriage. They should NEVER have had that to begin with.. I am so glad that Americans understand SO LITTLE about their rights. Thanks for throwing mine in the trash. That is why I hate so many of you.
 
Re: homo marriage...

First Off What ****ing right does the government have over marriage. They should NEVER have had that to begin with.. I am so glad that Americans understand SO LITTLE about their rights. Thanks for throwing mine in the trash. That is why I hate so many of you.


Oh look honey, the bleeding heart liberal is being bigoted, intolerant and HATE filled......again!
 
Re: Gay marriage

Youve Got To Be Kidding! said:
First Off What ****ing right does the government have over marriage. They should NEVER have had that to begin with.. I am so glad that Americans understand SO LITTLE about their rights. Thanks for throwing mine in the trash. That is why I hate so many of you.

That's quite a little rant considering that the comment was a reply to someone other than you.

Don't worry...We still love you...:2grouphug
 
When the state puts it's stamp of approval on anything it follows that the use of that product will expand. For example with dope illegal do not many refuse to use it for fear of the consequences? If it is legalized does it not follow that many who never used dope will then try it or use it once in a while or frequently. Look at the Dutch economy to see the results of legalized drugs. The Netherlands, the Dutch, have the worse economy in Europe out of twenty four nations. Marriage between a man and woman has the government stamp of approval because it benefits society. How? By producing future generations, future tax payers and warriors to protect the society. Likewise if the government gives it's stamp of approval to same sex marriage, how would it then benefit society? It does not. It does not produce future generations, future taxpayers or future warriors to protect the society. So not even getting into the moral implications of same sex unions it is not advantageous to permit same sex marriage.
 
Why should we punish people for getting a divorce?

Perhaps to keep the idiots like britney spears and other individuals from bastardizing marriage.
What are the requirements for marriage?

One man and one woman of no blood relation.

And what is the problem of expanding the definition oif marriage?

This sound like something a little kid would say"why can't you change the rules for me"
 
jamesrage said:
Perhaps to keep the idiots like britney spears and other individuals from bastardizing marriage.

So people make mistakes...what about if people just no longer love each other...that happened to a friend of mine. She should be imprisoned for loving someone who she later didn't?

jamesrage}One man and one woman of no blood relation.[/QUOTE said:
Why should it be a man and a woman? Why can't a man and a man, or a woman and a woman be allowed the same chance to commit to each other?

jamesrage said:
This sound like something a little kid would say"why can't you change the rules for me"

Yes, I suppose it does. But still, homosexuals are people too, with feelings and the ability to consent. Why should they not be allowed to marry?
 
ScottMarian said:
When the state puts it's stamp of approval on anything it follows that the use of that product will expand. For example with dope illegal do not many refuse to use it for fear of the consequences? If it is legalized does it not follow that many who never used dope will then try it or use it once in a while or frequently. Look at the Dutch economy to see the results of legalized drugs. The Netherlands, the Dutch, have the worse economy in Europe out of twenty four nations. Marriage between a man and woman has the government stamp of approval because it benefits society. How? By producing future generations, future tax payers and warriors to protect the society. Likewise if the government gives it's stamp of approval to same sex marriage, how would it then benefit society? It does not. It does not produce future generations, future taxpayers or future warriors to protect the society. So not even getting into the moral implications of same sex unions it is not advantageous to permit same sex marriage.

Yes, leaglizing same sex marriage would produce more same sex marriages than there are currently. Your example doesn't work because it isn't always true, when alcohol was made illegal use went up. It might make it easier for homosexuals to come out, but since a person can't just choose their sexuality it would not cause there to be more homosexuals.

Same sex marriages could contribute to society in ways other than producing children, though they could help produce children through other means if they wanted to. But they could just raise children that they adopt, which would contribute to society. Marriage for heterosexuals is not restricted based on if they can produce children.

Perhaps to keep the idiots like britney spears and other individuals from bastardizing marriage.
So I guess you don't like conservatives.


One man and one woman of no blood relation.
Only it hasn't always been that, marriage has also been between multiple people. If you are only talking about in the history of the US then you must think that interraical marrage should have remained illegal.
This sound like something a little kid would say"why can't you change the rules for me"
No actually its little kids that think rules should be followed all the time. Adults can decide in what cases the rules should be broken and if rules are unjust.
 
Only it hasn't always been that, marriage has also been between multiple people. If you are only talking about in the history of the US then you must think that interraical marrage should have remained illegal.

Just like a liberal to confuse race and behavior as though they were the same thing.
Race and behavior are not the same thing and there are many people who get angry everytime some homosexual tries to compare their quest to bastardize marriage to that of a black man who has through out the years won equal rights.

No actually its little kids that think rules should be followed all the time. Adults can decide in what cases the rules should be broken and if rules are unjust.

I have a better chance of finding a asian woman with DD size breast than I do finding a kid who thinks rules should be followed all the time.Hell if you can
find a child who thinks rules should be followed all ther time then perhaps that child's parents deserve parents of the year award.
Most kids think the rules should be bent or changed to suit them.
 
Yes, I suppose it does. But still, homosexuals are people too, with feelings and the ability to consent. Why should they not be allowed to marry?

They are allowed the same rights to marry anyone of the oppsitte sex just the same as normal people are.


So people make mistakes...what about if people just no longer love each other...that happened to a friend of mine. She should be imprisoned for loving someone who she later didn't?

Marriage is a serious deal,divorce should not be a option just because a wife no longer loves her husband or a husband no longer loves his wife.Every divorce in this country gives the sick freaks out there another can of fuel to torch marriage.

Why should it be a man and a woman? Why can't a man and a man, or a woman and a woman be allowed the same chance to commit to each other?


That is the standard of marriage in this country and many other countries.Men and women can breed and produce children and provide male and female role models to their children.Same sex couples can not do do that on their own.
 
Last edited:
Re: homo marriage...

Remember, part of the scripted Homosexual Agenda is to try to reduce the whole homo marriage argument to an abstract social question....don't fall for it....the tactic is to wear you down.....

The real reason why they shouldn' tbe able to marry is because they are sexual deviants and we don't let perverts marry based upon their perverse sexual lifestyle jus tlike we don't let coprophiles, zoophiles, pedophiles and necrophiles, transvestites, etc marry....and that is all the reason we need.
 
here's the proof

Here's the proof of what I just said, taken right from The Homosexual Agenda:

[1] TALK ABOUT GAYS AND GAYNESS AS LOUDLY AND AS OFTEN AS POSSIBLE. The principle behind this advice is simple: almost any behavior begins to look normal if you are exposed to enough of it at close quarters and among your acquaintances. The acceptability of the new behavior will ultimately hinge on the number of one's fellows doing it or accepting it. One may be offended by its novelty at first--many, in times past, were momentarily scandalized by "streaking,'' eating goldfish, and premarital sex. But as long as Joe Six-pack feels little pressure to perform likewise, and as long as the behavior in question presents little threat to his physical and financial security, he soon gets used to it and life goes on. The skeptic may still shake his head and think "people arc crazy these days," but over time his objections are likely to become more reflective, more philosophical, less emotional. The way to benumb raw sensitivities about homosexuality is to have a lot of people talk a great deal about the subject in a neutral or supportive way. Open and frank talk makes the subject seem less furtive, alien, and sinful, more above-board. Constant talk builds the impression that public opinion is at least divided on the subject, and that a sizable segment accepts or even practices homosexuality. Even rancorous debates between opponents and defenders serve the purpose of desensitization so long as "respectable" gays are front and center to make their own pitch. The main thing is to talk about gayness until the issue becomes thoroughly tiresome. And when we say talk about homosexuality, we mean just that. In the early stages of any campaign to reach straight America, the masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed and gay rights should be reduced to an abstract social question as much as possible. First let the camel get his nose inside the tent--only later his unsightly derriere!
 
Just like a liberal to confuse race and behavior as though they were the same thing.
Race and behavior are not the same thing and there are many people who get angry everytime some homosexual tries to compare their quest to bastardize marriage to that of a black man who has through out the years won equal rights.

Just like it was wrong to discriminate on race because it cannot be chosen or changed it is wrong to discriminate based on sexuality because it can be chosen or changed.

They are allowed the same rights to marry anyone of the oppsitte sex just the same as normal people are.

According to you here interracial couples should not have complained when they could not marry because they had the same right to marry the same race as everybody else.
I have a better chance of finding a asian woman with DD size breast than I do finding a kid who thinks rules should be followed all the time.Hell if you can
find a child who thinks rules should be followed all ther time then perhaps that child's parents deserve parents of the year award.
Most kids think the rules should be bent or changed to suit them.
It's a psychology thing, if you ask kid if a man should steal medicine to save his child they would say no assuming they're in the lowest stage of development. Children in the lowest stage don't consider the situation and just say that because the law says stealing is wrong it's wrong while older people would at least consider if more good than harm would come from the action.
That is the standard of marriage in this country and many other countries.Men and women can breed and produce children and provide male and female role models to their children.Same sex couples can not do do that on their own.
There is no proof that children need a male and female parent to turn out fine. Do you think we should stop infertile couples from marrying? Should we confiscate the children of a parent who's spouse died since they won't have a male and female parent?
 
Re: homo marriage...

Yami B plays the Homosexual Agenda foot soldier deploys the homo agenda script verbatim right from The Homosexual Agenda. I will post his words and show what part of the The Homosexual Agenda he is using:

Just like it was wrong to discriminate on race because it cannot be chosen or changed it is wrong to discriminate based on sexuality because it can be chosen or changed.


The Homosexual Agenda Chapter 2 verses 21-22:

"The message must read: As far as gays can tell, they were born gay, just as you were born heterosexual or white or black or bright or athletic. Nobody ever tricked or seduced them; they never made a choice, and are not morally blameworthy. What they do isn't willfully contrary - it's only natural for them. This twist of fate could as easily have happened to you!" "


There is no proof that children need a male and female parent to turn out fine. Do you think we should stop infertile couples from marrying? Should we confiscate the children of a parent who's spouse died since they won't have a male and female parent?

Ah, the abstract social question tactic.....

The Homosexual Agenda, Chapter 1, verses 20-21:

"gay rights should be reduced to an abstract social question as much as possible."
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
They are allowed the same rights to marry anyone of the oppsitte sex just the same as normal people are.

Yeah, that's exactly what they want to do. :roll:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom