• 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.
MrFungus writes
Really, where in the Constition does it grant the federal government the power to regulate marriage? The Constitution defines the powers of the federal government. If it isn't in the Constitution, then the federal shouldn't be involved in it.
Click to expand...


Shouldn't is a very big word. Obviously over the last sixty years or so, the Federal government has involved itself in virtually every aspect of our lives. I think we need a lot of new judges and Justices that understand the principle behind the Tenth Amendment.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Shouldn't is a very big word. Obviously over the last sixty years or so, the Federal government has involved itself in virtually every aspect of our lives. I think we need a lot of new judges and Justices that understand the principle behind the Tenth Amendment.
Click to expand...

Actually, "shouldn't" is too soft of a word. The Constitution specifically grants every power to the federal government.. If it isn't in the Constitution, and the federal government is involved in it, then the federal government is overstepping it's authority.
 
"I would like to note that "gay marriage" and "civil unions" aren't exactly propagandistic intrinsically. They are different entities that come with different sets of rights. The latter does not have all that the former has."
Do you have a sample proposed or existing gay 'marriage law that I could see?

"I honestly wasn't trying to propagandize or sterilize. I only see marriage as a binding union contract between one or more individuals for economic and other desired reasons."
I accept your word that your intent was not to deceive.


"As well, non gays can engage in civil unions as well. It's not something that the gay community made up to disguise the notion of gay marriage."
I can't help but to be suspicious about a sister institution to gay 'marriage.

Why should a heterosexual persue a right to marry a member of the same gender? I'm not being sarcastic, that's an honest question. I can think of a few, but since non of my ideas out way my opposition, I would like to hear the ideas of others.

"As for assault weapons---that's an actual category of weapon. How is that propaganda. What do you call an assault weapon? Just a gun? That seems awefully vague."
I don't call anything an "assult weapon" any more. The Brady Bill expired, you can own a machine gun now.

"You cannot say that homosexuals have equal marriage rights to heterosexuals, because a gay marrying a straight is patently absurd. A "right" is pointless if you have no reasonable way to access it. You cannot expect someone who is incapable of opposite-sex attraction to force himself into that type of marriage or get nothing; furthermore, no one is being hurt by the practice."
**Hay now, I thought that feelings, sex, and intamicy of any kind were not permisable in this discussion?!?
**I thought that this was STRICTLY a LEGAL issue?!?
If you want to go down the road of *why* we should we support or oppose gay 'marriage outside of agnostic reasonings, that's fine; but the thought police will have to sign off on it first, because they know what the first words out of my mouth will be.

I recommend that we keep this out of the realm of personal feelings and beliefs.

"You cannot say that homosexuals have equal marriage rights to heterosexuals, because a gay marrying a straight is patently absurd."
That is a very nice opinion, and I am inclined to agree. But that is what a homosexual would have to do in order to comply with what Marriage is.

I find the whole notion of promoting and endorsing an abnormal behavior absured.

"The burden of proof for legality should be on those who say something should be illegal, not for someone say it should be legal."
Legislation doesn't pass by defalt, sorry. You are proposing new law, now tell me why I should support it.

If you want something illegal, you have to justify denial of freedom, because freedom of association is a given. If you cannot show why it cannot, there's no reason to disallow it.
Gay marriage is currently illegal in the majority of the States, so I need prove nothing.
You want that overturned? Tell my why I should support your view.

I can show why it should not be allowed, but all that the thought police will let me get away with is "I disagree with elevating and promoting a homosexual union which encourages the practice of forming and maintaining an abnormal family".
See my post here: http://www.debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?t=4135&page=27
 
shuamort said:
Genesis doesn't mention marriage.
Click to expand...
Genesis 2:23-24 is the origin of the union that today we call marriage (and tomarrow we may call it a 'Hetero. Civil Union').

"A Rose by any other name.....", as it were.
 
Genesis 2:23-24 is the origin of the union that today we call marriage (and tomarrow we may call it a 'Hetero. Civil Union').

"A Rose by any other name.....", as it were.
Click to expand...

Who cares what the Bible says? Marriage has existed long before the Bible was written, and the Bible != law.


"I would like to note that "gay marriage" and "civil unions" aren't exactly propagandistic intrinsically. They are different entities that come with different sets of rights. The latter does not have all that the former has."
Do you have a sample proposed or existing gay 'marriage law that I could see?
Click to expand...

Yes. This weekend I will post it. There are a litany of "rights" that civil unions don't have compared to marriages. If you give gays civil unions but not "marriages" they will therefore be unbalanced.

Why should a heterosexual persue a right to marry a member of the same gender? I'm not being sarcastic, that's an honest question. I can think of a few, but since non of my ideas out way my opposition, I would like to hear the ideas of others.
Click to expand...

A heterosexual has no desire for a member of the same sex as much as a homosexual has no desire for the opposite sex. That should answer your question and point out the hypocrisy in your older position.


"As for assault weapons---that's an actual category of weapon. How is that propaganda. What do you call an assault weapon? Just a gun? That seems awefully vague."
I don't call anything an "assult weapon" any more. The Brady Bill expired, you can own a machine gun now.
Click to expand...

What is an assault rifle Alex? A genuine assault weapon, as opposed to a legal definition, is a hand-held, selective fire weapon, which means it's capable of firing in either an automatic or a semiautomatic mode depending on the position of a selector switch. These kinds of weapons are heavily regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and are further regulated in some states. (See machine guns.)

This is not a propaganda term. It has existed as a military term for quite some time.

**Hay now, I thought that feelings, sex, and intamicy of any kind were not permisable in this discussion?!?
**I thought that this was STRICTLY a LEGAL issue?!?
If you want to go down the road of *why* we should we support or oppose gay 'marriage outside of agnostic reasonings, that's fine; but the thought police will have to sign off on it first, because they know what the first words out of my mouth will be.

I recommend that we keep this out of the realm of personal feelings and beliefs.
Click to expand...

Nope. That's part of the contract. You ar% the one that said it's "sterile." I mentioned contract for personal and economic foundations. That still applies.

That is a very nice opinion, and I am inclined to agree. But that is what a homosexual would have to do in order to comply with what Marriage is.

I find the whole notion of promoting and endorsing an abnormal behavior absured.
Click to expand...

Abnormal != bad. There's no reason to even care about what they do. If it harm none, then it be none of your business. Your definition of "marriage" is culturally relative, and not based on any ethical universalization. It's simply invalid.

If you want something illegal, you have to justify denial of freedom, because freedom of association is a given. If you cannot show why it cannot, there's no reason to disallow it.
Gay marriage is currently illegal in the majority of the States, so I need prove nothing.
You want that overturned? Tell my why I should support your view.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. Illegality doesn't mean "wrong" or "right." You do need to prove it's wrong, and use solid ethical foundations to boot. I don't give a rats ass if it's illegal. There are immoral laws. THey have no justified the illegality. The law is immoral.

The law violates basic rights guaranteed by the intent of the constitution.

I can show why it should not be allowed, but all that the thought police will let me get away with is "I disagree with elevating and promoting a homosexual union which encourages the practice of forming and maintaining an abnormal family".
Click to expand...

Abnormal family? The majority of evidence according to the American Anthropological association and the american pyschiatric/psychological associations is that it does no harm whatsover, and they are fully capable of rasing healthy children. Your "harm to the family" arugment is largely nonexistent B.S.

If you want to make abnormal familes illegal, then also ban singe parent households. That used to be 'abnormal.'
 
Technocratic_Utilitarian said:
Abnormal family? The majority of evidence according to the American Anthropological association and the american pyschiatric/psychological associations is that it does no harm whatsover, and they are fully capable of rasing healthy children. Your "harm to the family" arugment is largely nonexistent B.S.

If you want to make abnormal familes illegal, then also ban singe parent households. That used to be 'abnormal.'
Click to expand...

I am not convinced that same sex parents do "nothing" at all to a child. I'm sure it affects the child to some extent, at least. I still feel that a traditional family is the most healthy enviroment to grow up in.

Also, it makes little sense to me why homosexuals want to have children when they know full well they can't produce them naturally. If they wanted to have children that badly then why not just mate with the opposite sex? And don't say it's just cause they're not attracted to the opposite sex because being gay is a choice as far as I know.
 
Last edited:
The majority of your opposition on this issue cares about what the bible says. You can disregard it, sure, but since it is your biggest hurdle, you won't be converting many people to your point of view.

Abnormal doesn't = wrong. You said that, not me. See the conversation on the link that I provided on that post.

So, Waite...I'm confused....every time I start talking about feelings, emotions, sexuality, intimacy, etc., the thought police descend and demand that I keep it strictly as a matter of the Constitution. But when I do, people like you say that there is more to it then that, and demand that we include everything ells as well.
WTF!!!
Is this or is this not strictly an agnostic issue?!?!?!?
Make up your collective f**king minds!!!!

Assult rifle has always been a military term, not assult weapon. An "assult weapon" includes a wide verity of handguns and shootguns, as well as a list banned features on ANY firearm.
For example: Under the Braidy Bill, if you mount a cartrage pouch, a laser sight and a scope on your antique Civil War Musket, your antique Civil War Musket then becomes an baned "assult-weapon" and you get 10 years.
 
perversion of homosexual marriage...

Kelzie said:
And we've already been through this. What about heterosexuals who can't or don't want to reproduce? Should they be denied the opportunity to get married? What about women past menopause?
Click to expand...
This is called choice or a medical condition defender of the perversion homosexual marriage.
Now with two perfectly healthy homosexuals it is impossible for them to reproduce. That is why homosexuality is a perversion of the laws of nature.

Why do homosexuals use the word gay? If there is no shame in being a homosexual why the name change?
 
Re: perversion of homosexual marriage...

DHard3006 said:
This is called choice or a medical condition defender of the perversion homosexual marriage.
Now with two perfectly healthy homosexuals it is impossible for them to reproduce. That is why homosexuality is a perversion of the laws of nature.
Click to expand...

Please post a link to "the laws of nature".
 
Last edited:
Re: perversion of homosexual marriage...

DHard3006 said:
This is called choice or a medical condition defender of the perversion homosexual marriage.
Now with two perfectly healthy homosexuals it is impossible for them to reproduce. That is why homosexuality is a perversion of the laws of nature.

Why do homosexuals use the word gay? If there is no shame in being a homosexual why the name change?
Click to expand...

ITS BAAAAAAA-AAAAACK!!!!

Now explain to me one more time...er I mean for the first time...what these laws of nature are? How many times have you been asked this, bigot or defender of the social disgrace of bigotry?
 
Busta said:
Genesis 2:23-24 is the origin of the union that today we call marriage (and tomarrow we may call it a 'Hetero. Civil Union').

"A Rose by any other name.....", as it were.
Click to expand...
Well, still. Absense of evidence isn't evidence and the absence of the word in Genesis doesn't prove the label.
 
Re: perversion of homosexual marriage...

DHard3006 said:
This is called choice or a medical condition defender of the perversion homosexual marriage.
Now with two perfectly healthy homosexuals it is impossible for them to reproduce. That is why homosexuality is a perversion of the laws of nature.
Click to expand...
There's a jump in logic there.

DHard3006 said:
Why do homosexuals use the word gay? If there is no shame in being a homosexual why the name change?
Click to expand...
Why do straight people call homosexuals "gays". Or why do straight people not call themselves heterosexuals. Why do people named James go by "Jim"? Why is there more than one word for the same thing? If this is what you're using to buttress your argument is lexicon and vernacular, well, your argument is even sadder than I thought. Or pondered. Or mused upon. Or opined. Or entertained. Or ruminated. Get the point?
 
Busta said:
Again, I do not object to strait people taking advantage of existing law.
Please, take advantage of any legal loophole you can (I'm not without my financial games). Big Bro. needs a good but-kicking once in a while.

As far as Canadian law is concerned, I did give evidence.....but this isn't Canada, so I'll keep my eye on the headlines (as allways).

Of-coarse people abuse strait 'marriage (going around immigration rules comes to mind first....). People abuse laws all the time. I would indeed be naive if I thought that this was not true.
Click to expand...

Huh? You were citing that as an argument against gay marriage, were you not? So, there is no logical argument left (not as if you had one in the first place).

THIS PART IS FOR ALL THOSE OPPOSED TO GAY MARRIAGE.

You and others like you who try to justify denying gay people marriage time and time again without a religious argument go on about keeping the "defintion of marriage" but are really all about one thing: religion. You're motivated by your religion in politics? Fine, that's OK. Whats not OK is when you push for your religious beliefs to be adopted or kept, in this case, by our government.

I hear all too often how some Christians are denied to vote their moral conscience, yet they will sweep those beliefs (which are so virtuous and important for them to hold) right under the carpet in the blink of an eye when they know that a religious argument against gay marriage holds absolutely no water in our government. Funny that, I though separation of church and state never existed. When you look at all these conservative Christian organizations like the AFA they won't just quote the Bible and be open about their beliefs, but instead they'll hide behind a bunch of pseudo-science or made up BS. For these groups the ends justify the means. My politics, my beliefs, are all based on reason and I do my best to keep any distracting factors from interfering.

So when someone says that they don't hate gays and just feel that the definition shouldn't be changed (or some other non-religious argument for an issue which can only be based on religion, not reason) I can smell the BS from a mile away. If you really believe that your religious beliefs lead you to treat gays as 2nd class citizens by law (as opposed to having religious objections to gay marriage, but recognizing that there is no logical reason why it shouldn't be legal) and are a religious bigot, then just say so. Let's cut though this semantics crap and get to the crux of the issue which are Christians that want to continue this breach in separation of church and state from being closed. Or in other words, special rights for Christians such as the right to uphold their view of marriage on the government over any other.
 
shuamort said:
Well, still. Absense of evidence isn't evidence and the absence of the word in Genesis doesn't prove the label.
Click to expand...

Except that Genesis 2:23-24 is the evidence. Nothing is missing. Back then Adam and Eve called it "one flesh", the name has since changed to "marriage", and soon "civil union" will be the new name. We can call it what ever we like.....we could call a car a bicycle and change the laws to reflect that, but what a car is wouldn't change, nor would a bicycle...only our name for it.
 
Columbusite said:
Huh? You were citing that as an argument against gay marriage, were you not? So, there is no logical argument left (not as if you had one in the first place).

THIS PART IS FOR ALL THOSE OPPOSED TO GAY MARRIAGE.

You and others like you who try to justify denying gay people marriage time and time again without a religious argument go on about keeping the "defintion of marriage" but are really all about one thing: religion. You're motivated by your religion in politics? Fine, that's OK. Whats not OK is when you push for your religious beliefs to be adopted or kept, in this case, by our government.

I hear all too often how some Christians are denied to vote their moral conscience, yet they will sweep those beliefs (which are so virtuous and important for them to hold) right under the carpet in the blink of an eye when they know that a religious argument against gay marriage holds absolutely no water in our government. Funny that, I though separation of church and state never existed. When you look at all these conservative Christian organizations like the AFA they won't just quote the Bible and be open about their beliefs, but instead they'll hide behind a bunch of pseudo-science or made up BS. For these groups the ends justify the means. My politics, my beliefs, are all based on reason and I do my best to keep any distracting factors from interfering.

So when someone says that they don't hate gays and just feel that the definition shouldn't be changed (or some other non-religious argument for an issue which can only be based on religion, not reason) I can smell the BS from a mile away. If you really believe that your religious beliefs lead you to treat gays as 2nd class citizens by law (as opposed to having religious objections to gay marriage, but recognizing that there is no logical reason why it shouldn't be legal) and are a religious bigot, then just say so. Let's cut though this semantics crap and get to the crux of the issue which are Christians that want to continue this breach in separation of church and state from being closed. Or in other words, special rights for Christians such as the right to uphold their view of marriage on the government over any other.
Click to expand...

You leave yourself wide open for the "slippery slope" (correctly pronounced "Logical Conclusion") argument by invoking the whole "equal rights" issue. In order to make progress tward convincing others to support gay 'marriage, you will have to promote it in a positive, beneficial-to-all light.

Unintended consequences of legislation are allways an issue. Gay 'marriage is no exception. I believe that you thought that I was using an abuse of law argument; that was not the direction that I intended to go.

Here is the direction that I wanted to explore. I would like to discuss any options that you can think of, but if you want to go another way, so be it. Just let me know.

Posted by Busta;
"Lets look at this in a different light:
Civil Unions include both homosexuals and heterosexuals. Homosexuals claim that the right to marry someone of the same gender is a civil right being denied by the current definition of marriage. If the current definition of marriage is denying homosexuals the right to marry someone of the same gender, than the current definition of marriage is denying heterosexuals this right, also.

"Why should heterosexuals persue a right to marry someone of the same gender?"
 
Re: perversion of homosexual marriage...

Busta said:
LOL
I thought you'd like that.:smile:
Click to expand...

You're a bad boy! ;)
 
They are being denied the right to marry a consenting individual of their choice. That's a violation of constitutional protections and freedom of association.
 
The majority of your opposition on this issue cares about what the bible says. You can disregard it, sure, but since it is your biggest hurdle, you won't be converting many people to your point of view.
Click to expand...

Bible is inaccurate and invalid. It is not fact; it's faction. Religions are not universally applicable ethical doctrines, and they rely expressly on Appeal to Authority from a being who likely doesn't exist.

Your "conversion" is not required for justice to take place.

Abnormal doesn't = wrong. You said that, not me. See the conversation on the link that I provided on that post.
Click to expand...

Yes, Abnormal != wrong (as in immoral). If you think it does, you are assuming the Naturalistic Fallacy. You cannot go from an Is to an Ought in Normative Ethics. As for the "laws of nature" comment by the other guy---law of nature in ethics is irrelevant, because Nature != moral. If you say it does, then you are committing the Naturalistic fallacy.

So, Waite...I'm confused....every time I start talking about feelings, emotions, sexuality, intimacy, etc., the thought police descend and demand that I keep it strictly as a matter of the Constitution. But when I do, people like you say that there is more to it then that, and demand that we include everything ells as well.
WTF!!!
Is this or is this not strictly an agnostic issue?!?!?!?
Make up your collective f**king minds!!!!
Click to expand...

Agnoststic? What does that have to do with anything? That's a Red Herring, since Agnostic means: don't know either way.

It is not black or white, but legalistic and ethical. It is A. Illegal and B. Immoral what the government is doing by denying marriage to homosexuals. This is a fact, whether you choose to accept it or not. The Constitution is relevant in that it provides equal protections as well as implied freedom of Association given that you hurt no one else or do not, by doing so, infringe on the powers granted expressly to the government. Ethically, there is no argument to disfavour homosexual marriage.

Assult rifle has always been a military term, not assult weapon.
Click to expand...

Actually, this is false. There is a difference between the newly politicized term "assault weapon" and the true military "assault weapon." Look it up. An assault rifle is a "true" assault weapon, because modern law definitions of assault weapons do not match the original definition.

Dictionary also says your full of ****:


Assault Weapon:
n.

An infantry weapon, such as an assault rifle.

An "assult weapon" includes a wide verity of handguns and shootguns, as well as a list banned features on ANY firearm.
Click to expand...

That's the stupid government definition, not the military designation.

For example: Under the Braidy Bill, if you mount a cartrage pouch, a laser sight and a scope on your antique Civil War Musket, your antique Civil War Musket then becomes an baned "assult-weapon" and you get 10 years.
Click to expand...

I am not even mentioning the Brady Bill. This is a totally different concept compared to what the brady bill thought was an assault weapon.







George Washington wrote:

I am not convinced that same sex parents do "nothing" at all to a child.
Click to expand...

Well, when I care, I will be sure to send you the first email.

-
I'm sure it affects the child to some extent, at least. I still feel that a traditional family is the most healthy enviroment to grow up in.
Click to expand...

No credible study proves this; they show little change, if any. If you have a problem with "little change," then illegalize all other "tense" marriages and one unit households. Forbid divorce too, since that's the leading problem of marriage, not gays.

Also, it makes little sense to me why homosexuals want to have children when they know full well they can't produce them naturally. If they wanted to have children that badly then why not just mate with the opposite sex?
Click to expand...

Many people adopt, even though they can perfectly well have childre. According to your logic, it makes no sense why they would want to adopt. Furthermore, what they choose to do is irrelevant to you.

And don't say it's just cause they're not attracted to the opposite sex because being gay is a choice as far as I know.
Click to expand...

Well, when "as far as I know" becomes a valid defense, I will let you know. Most studies say nothing about choice, and it's highly unlikely, since sexual attraction is chemical. You think they manipulate their body chemicals on the molecular level? Please. No credible scientific study corroborates what you say; none.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom