• 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

jallman said:
Words take on new inclusions all the time...like cool to describe a hip person or hot to describe an attractive person...so whats your point about definition.

Those aren't actually "inclusions", they're new/alternate definitions added to an existing word....Not to mention that your specific examples are slang...The dictionary lists slang words as such, as to say "not an actual definition, not to be used in this context for formal writing, etc." "Last time I checked, "Marriage" was not a slang word, had no slang definitions, nor was it a word to be tossed around lightly.

I'm aware that some animals tend to have homosexual relationships, however, humans are not animals. Granted, we fit into Kingdom Animalia in the biology textbook, but what seperates us from the animals are a (the first 3 factua, the last my personal belief) conscience, free will (we're not driven soley by instinct.), opposable thumbs, and above & beyond any of those things, an immortal soul.

jallman said:
Then you go home and tell your wife tonight..."Honey, I think about what gay men do so much that if I knew they were getting married our relationship wouldnt be as special anymore. When gay men start getting married, I'm going to feel weird about us."

Not "weird" about us, but weird about the situation. It has nothing to do with our individual relationship, it's marriage on the whole that I'd feel weird about. To me, it's just as ridiculous as someone wanting to marry their dog, goldfish, or table lamp for that matter.


jallman said:
Smoke screens, red herrings, and revisionism do not make up for pure bigotry and prejudice.

All Iwas doing by stating what I did in my last post was changing a definition....you seemed to have no problem with that until it came to something that YOU oppose....interesting.

Yes, it is flat out prejudice, you are correct by stating that...I find even the idea of homosexual relationships immoral, disgusting & just plain wrong...not only against the laws of God, but the laws of nature too. So, for leftists, even if you believe Science over God...you should STILL see that it's wrong.
 
Re: Gay marriage

ILikeDubyah said:
jallman said:
Those aren't actually "inclusions", they're new/alternate definitions added to an existing word....Not to mention that your specific examples are slang...The dictionary lists slang words as such, as to say "not an actual definition, not to be used in this context for formal writing, etc." "Last time I checked, "Marriage" was not a slang word, had no slang definitions, nor was it a word to be tossed around lightly.

I am not dogmatic and rigid, so I will say you have a good point. Those were probably bad examples. However, in an earlier post someone did make a very valid point. Concepts and definitions of marriage have changed over time. In fact, had you been less selective and more honest with your post of the definition of marriage, then you would have posted the rest of the definition that included same sex union. Bigotry is typically coutered with truth though, so I must thank Mr. Fungus for calling you out on your LIE of ommission.

I'm aware that some animals tend to have homosexual relationships, however, humans are not animals. Granted, we fit into Kingdom Animalia in the biology textbook, but what seperates us from the animals are a (the first 3 factua, the last my personal belief) conscience, free will (we're not driven soley by instinct.), opposable thumbs, and above & beyond any of those things, an immortal soul.

I dont recall making any statement to the idea that animals take part in homosexuality. On this issue, I dont care what animals do. Hey, and here is a clue...I dont care what you do, so why do you concern yourself so much with what gays do? Perhaps if people like you spent less time focusing on what others do and start focusing on what you can do for your own family, the divorce rate in America wouldnt be over 50%.


Not "weird" about us, but weird about the situation. It has nothing to do with our individual relationship, it's marriage on the whole that I'd feel weird about. To me, it's just as ridiculous as someone wanting to marry their dog, goldfish, or table lamp for that matter.

Whats weird about the situation? It has nothing to do with you. Unless of course, you so passionately think about homosexuals and their lives that you arent living yours to the fullest. Then I would say you have some other issue that isnt about gays at all. And besides, did you even read my first post, where I said I dont agree with same sex marriage, but I do promote civil union. There should be nothing weird to you about that...it is not a church endorsed matrimony...it is a legal binding of a couple who pay the same taxes, serve the same country, and have the same rights guaranteed in the constitution just by nature of their citizenship and humanity. It doesnt concern you at all then...unless of course, like I said, you so deeply and passionately think about it constantly that it lessens the quality of your life...then you just need help.

All Iwas doing by stating what I did in my last post was changing a definition....you seemed to have no problem with that until it came to something that YOU oppose....interesting.

Dont put words in my mouth. I dont oppose the war at all...I oppose ridiculous analogies that are not germane to the discussion.

Yes, it is flat out prejudice, you are correct by stating that...I find even the idea of homosexual relationships immoral, disgusting & just plain wrong...not only against the laws of God, but the laws of nature too. So, for leftists, even if you believe Science over God...you should STILL see that it's wrong.

Wow...such intense passion about a group of people you seem to have nothing to do with. Is it ignorance that causes this? Do you dwell on the idea of two men or two women having a relationship so much that you incite this kind of ire in yourself? Why do you dwell on it so much? Do you know any gay people at all? If we were to have civil union, do you think it is going to increase your contact with them? And about this God thing...I was of the impression we have a separation of Church and state. I was of the impression that your religious beliefs could not affect legislation...or am I wrong? If you want to make an argument about the legality or the prohibition of civil union, please try to make your arguments credible instead of based on emotion and prejudice...which by the way, I dont think is your fault. You are just not well informed.
 
Re: Gay marriage

jallman said:
ILikeDubyah said:
jallman said:
I am not dogmatic and rigid, so I will say you have a good point. Those were probably bad examples. However, in an earlier post someone did make a very valid point. Concepts and definitions of marriage have changed over time. In fact, had you been less selective and more honest with your post of the definition of marriage, then you would have posted the rest of the definition that included same sex union. Bigotry is typically coutered with truth though, so I must thank Mr. Fungus for calling you out on your LIE of ommission.



I dont recall making any statement to the idea that animals take part in homosexuality. On this issue, I dont care what animals do. Hey, and here is a clue...I dont care what you do, so why do you concern yourself so much with what gays do? Perhaps if people like you spent less time focusing on what others do and start focusing on what you can do for your own family, the divorce rate in America wouldnt be over 50%.




Whats weird about the situation? It has nothing to do with you. Unless of course, you so passionately think about homosexuals and their lives that you arent living yours to the fullest. Then I would say you have some other issue that isnt about gays at all. And besides, did you even read my first post, where I said I dont agree with same sex marriage, but I do promote civil union. There should be nothing weird to you about that...it is not a church endorsed matrimony...it is a legal binding of a couple who pay the same taxes, serve the same country, and have the same rights guaranteed in the constitution just by nature of their citizenship and humanity. It doesnt concern you at all then...unless of course, like I said, you so deeply and passionately think about it constantly that it lessens the quality of your life...then you just need help.



Dont put words in my mouth. I dont oppose the war at all...I oppose ridiculous analogies that are not germane to the discussion.



Wow...such intense passion about a group of people you seem to have nothing to do with. Is it ignorance that causes this? Do you dwell on the idea of two men or two women having a relationship so much that you incite this kind of ire in yourself? Why do you dwell on it so much? Do you know any gay people at all? If we were to have civil union, do you think it is going to increase your contact with them? And about this God thing...I was of the impression we have a separation of Church and state. I was of the impression that your religious beliefs could not affect legislation...or am I wrong? If you want to make an argument about the legality or the prohibition of civil union, please try to make your arguments credible instead of based on emotion and prejudice...which by the way, I dont think is your fault. You are just not well informed.


LMAO!!! Have you been to dictionary.com? there is NO MENTION of same sex. The only other dictionaries I have access to are an un-abridged and published in 1900....what do you know, not in there either.

First, this country was settled because of, and founded on religious beliefs....Church & state have never been seperate in this country! People like to believe that that are seperate, and that's fine with me, because if they're busy believing that, it means that we can let Religious Beliefs affect legislation ALL the time! What are you smoking?


I do have 2 gay friends, in fact, they're partners. We debate about this all the time...the difference is that they understand why I believe it's wrong. Also, I have to care about the matter because it does affect me. As a Catholic, it's part of my Christian duty to find the people making immoral/bad/wrong decisions and help them, possibly showing them the way to salvation.

My salvation rests in how good a person I am, and what I do to help others. Gay Marriage...definately a step down the wrong path. It's just like the whole AIDS deal. The majority of Catholics don't have/won't ever get or have anything to do with aids, however, the Catholic Church funds at least 10% of all Aids care & research worldwide....We do it because we care, and we want to help.

You're seeing me being against gay marriage as a negative thing, but I see it only as positive, as My beliefs, my morals, my values, and my religion tell me it's wrong. To have something that I personally, and many many people collectively find wrong SANCTIONED by the government, federal, state, or local is wrong.

You're right, technically, it should be legal for them to marry....I'm just glad it's not, and hopefully it never will be. And actually, the only time I dwell on this subject is when somebody asks me about it. I'm not one of those people at rallies saying it's wrong, or anything like that. There is no need for that right now, as it's still illegal. More than likely it'll be put to vote again, and people in support of it will lose again. I only need concern myself with the people I come into contact with or care about at the moment.
 
Re: Gay marriage

ILikeDubyah said:
Yes, it is flat out prejudice, you are correct by stating that...I find even the idea of homosexual relationships immoral, disgusting & just plain wrong...not only against the laws of God, but the laws of nature too. So, for leftists, even if you believe Science over God...you should STILL see that it's wrong.

Yes, I do, but biology has nothing to do with it. Marriage is a human concept, and I would argue that part of the beauty of being sentient, self-aware, intelligent beings is the ability to realise that science is not the be all and end all of everything, thoughts, feeling and desires are there aswell. If two human men, or women love each other, as a man and a woman might, then should they not have the ability to partake in the human concept of marriage? Just as their heterosexual counterparts can?

I am not saying gay marriage should be forced upon religions...if a particular church do not believe in it, thats their choice. But a government has no reason for illegalising it.
 
Re: Gay marriage

Plain old me said:
Yes, I do, but biology has nothing to do with it. Marriage is a human concept, and I would argue that part of the beauty of being sentient, self-aware, intelligent beings is the ability to realise that science is not the be all and end all of everything, thoughts, feeling and desires are there aswell. If two human men, or women love each other, as a man and a woman might, then should they not have the ability to partake in the human concept of marriage? Just as their heterosexual counterparts can?

I am not saying gay marriage should be forced upon religions...if a particular church do not believe in it, thats their choice. But a government has no reason for illegalising it.


It also has no reason FOR legalizing it. Single people pay higher taxes, the gov't would lose money there. Also, you don't create legislation to appease the few, it's a waste of time & money. On the flipside, Being that all of the places it was put up for a vote, the pro side got Crushed at the polls, you might say that by illegalizing it, the government created legislation to appease the masses.
 
Re: Gay marriage

ILikeDubyah said:
jallman said:
ILikeDubyah said:
LMAO!!! Have you been to dictionary.com? there is NO MENTION of same sex. The only other dictionaries I have access to are an un-abridged and published in 1900....what do you know, not in there either.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=marriage

And, since you have some difficulty reading all of a link, let me be so kind as to post it here too, just as Mr. Fungus did.

mar·riage ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mrj)
n.

The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
The state of being married; wedlock.
A common-law marriage.
A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
A wedding.
A close union: “the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics” (Lloyd Rose).
Games. The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.


I also took the liberty of bolding the referenced text for your convenience. I do not wish to discuss this anymore with you because you are either A) a willing liar (which goes against your "I'm a good Catholic" argument) or B) you are an idiot, which would make this debate pointless since you have no comprehension. With people like you arguing this debate, I am sure I will be having my civil union by the next election.

:lol:
 
Re: Gay marriage

jallman said:
ILikeDubyah said:
jallman said:
ILikeDubyah said:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=marriage

And, since you have some difficulty reading all of a link, let me be so kind as to post it here too, just as Mr. Fungus did.

mar·riage ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mrj)
n.

The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
The state of being married; wedlock.
A common-law marriage.
A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
A wedding.
A close union: “the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics” (Lloyd Rose).
Games. The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.


I also took the liberty of bolding the referenced text for your convenience. I do not wish to discuss this anymore with you because you are either A) a willing liar (which goes against your "I'm a good Catholic" argument) or B) you are an idiot, which would make this debate pointless since you have no comprehension. With people like you arguing this debate, I am sure I will be having my civil union by the next election.

:lol:

Honestly, didn't see that....Just FYI, in the dictionary, when words ares in italics, it means "see this word for definition".....meaning that it's not the same thing...it's close, but not the same...the words "a same sex marriage" were italicised before you put it in bold.

Willing liar in what way? Also....love being called "people like you"....that's just funny... The "people like you" offense, rarely do th eones who use it know what type of person they're talking to. And Finally, your opinion of me really has nothing to do with anything, nor do I care. As long as there are people arguing the fact, you'll never win, as you will always be in the minority.
 
Re: Gay marriage

ILikeDubyah said:
It also has no reason FOR legalizing it. Single people pay higher taxes, the gov't would lose money there. Also, you don't create legislation to appease the few, it's a waste of time & money. On the flipside, Being that all of the places it was put up for a vote, the pro side got Crushed at the polls, you might say that by illegalizing it, the government created legislation to appease the masses.

I would say treating people equally, homo- or hetero-sexual, is good reason enough.
 
Re: Gay marriage

jallman said:
I do not wish to discuss this anymore with you because you are either A) a willing liar (which goes against your "I'm a good Catholic" argument) or B) you are an idiot, which would make this debate pointless since you have no comprehension. With people like you arguing this debate, I am sure I will be having my civil union by the next election.

:lol:
[Mod Note]

Let's keep the personal attacks out of this forum

[/Mod Note]
 
Re: Gay marriage

As long as there are people arguing the fact, you'll never win, as you will always be in the minority.

I would beg to differ...and I cite this post as my source. Along with it, I cite the entire gay marriage forum in the archives. If this is any kind of sampling of opinion...and you believe me to be in the minority with my opinion...then you also need to go back to dictionary.com and look up the definition of minority...but I am sure you would be just as selective about that definition also. Your credibility has
:blowup:
 
Why,why not?
What's your thoughts?
 
Re: Gay marriage

jallman said:
I would beg to differ...and I cite this post as my source. Along with it, I cite the entire gay marriage forum in the archives. If this is any kind of sampling of opinion...and you believe me to be in the minority with my opinion...then you also need to go back to dictionary.com and look up the definition of minority...but I am sure you would be just as selective about that definition also. Your credibility has
:blowup:


First, beg to differ from what? Second, You're using a forum (where it looks to me about 2/3rds of the people on it are Dem/lib) that has less than 2000 members....and only 600 or so are active. It doesn't really help your case to do so, it's like looking at one of those job approval ratings for the president where they only asked 1000 people what they think. The popular vote proved just the opposite a year ago.

Have no idea what the definition of minority has to do with this. If you're citing the thing about having a distinctive presence, a fly has a distinctive presence in an elephant's ass too....so what?

(In jest) Finally, my credibility has exploded...good, so that means you agree with me, right? As in everyone's going to be on my side? That's the way I took it...population explosion....explosion of information/knowledge....my credibility has exploded, that's excellent!
 
Re: Gay marriage

ILikeDubyah said:
First, beg to differ from what? Second, You're using a forum (where it looks to me about 2/3rds of the people on it are Dem/lib) that has less than 2000 members....and only 600 or so are active.
Here's the breakdown of people who have listed affiliation:
Conservatives: 66
Constitutionalists: 1
Independents: 29
Liberal/Progressives: 33
Libertarians: 5
Socialists: 5
 
Re: Gay marriage

shuamort said:
Here's the breakdown of people who have listed affiliation:
Conservatives: 66
Constitutionalists: 1
Independents: 29
Liberal/Progressives: 33
Libertarians: 5
Socialists: 5


Wow, never would have guessed that...guess the libs are either just really loud, or come here & post more often.
 
Re: Gay marriage

ILikeDubyah said:
Wow, never would have guessed that...guess the libs are either just really loud, or come here & post more often.

Or you just blew something out of proportion to make a point...
 
Re: Gay marriage

Kelzie said:
Or you just blew something out of proportion to make a point...

He may have blown something out of proportion, but did he make any real point?
 
Re: Gay marriage

shuamort said:
[Mod Note]

Let's keep the personal attacks out of this forum

[/Mod Note]

Ok, true, that was a little underhanded, but my only apology is that I took my indignation out as an observation of Ilikedubyah's outright deceit when I should have turned the offense toward this:

Another liberal spits on the legitimate minorities by comparing behavior to race.All behavior is controllable.No body points a gun at your head and tells you to be a fudge packer. Jamesrage

But let me not split hairs over the issue of impartiality...
 
Re: Gay marriage

Kelzie said:
Or you just blew something out of proportion to make a point...

Its also possible that he is simply the underbelly of conservativism and represents only the far extreme that makes the whole group look bad.
 
Re: Gay marriage

jallman said:
Another liberal spits on the legitimate minorities by comparing behavior to race.All behavior is controllable.No body points a gun at your head and tells you to be a fudge packer. Jamesrage

But let me not split hairs over the issue of impartiality...
Unfortunately, I'm not omnipresent.... yet.... Feel free to click on the "report post button in the interim:

[Mod Note]

Jamesrage, Let's keep the personal attacks out of this forum

[/Mod Note]
jallman said:
But let me not split hairs over the issue of impartiality...
Now, I'm curious, where am I being impartial? You do realize that I'm the "gay moderator", right?
 
Re: Gay marriage

shuamort said:
Unfortunately, I'm not omnipresent.... yet.... Feel free to click on the "report post button in the interim:

[Mod Note]

Jamesrage, Let's keep the personal attacks out of this forum

[/Mod Note]
Now, I'm curious, where am I being impartial? You do realize that I'm the "gay moderator", right?

HAHA, the GAY moderator? I did not realize that actually. I have read very few of you posts in all honesty. Forgive my hotheadedness then. I also now appreciate your impartiality in making your judgement by not teaming up with the other gay. :doh
 
Re: Gay marriage

ILikeDubyah said:
LMAO!!! Have you been to dictionary.com? there is NO MENTION of same sex. The only other dictionaries I have access to are an un-abridged and published in 1900....what do you know, not in there either.

Yes, I have been there. Specifically, http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=marriage The definition, 1 d is, "A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage"

So, I guess the question should be, have you been to dictionary.com?

ILikeDubyah said:
First, this country was settled because of, and founded on religious beliefs....Church & state have never been seperate in this country! People like to believe that that are seperate, and that's fine with me, because if they're busy believing that, it means that we can let Religious Beliefs affect legislation ALL the time! What are you smoking?

People's beliefs affect the way people act. There is no denying that. However, there has always been a seperation between the laws that govern this country and religion. Are you aware that there is no mention of god in the Constitution? Or that the only mention in religion is the guarantee of the freedom of religion.

ILikeDubyah said:
I do have 2 gay friends, in fact, they're partners. We debate about this all the time...the difference is that they understand why I believe it's wrong. Also, I have to care about the matter because it does affect me. As a Catholic, it's part of my Christian duty to find the people making immoral/bad/wrong decisions and help them, possibly showing them the way to salvation.

So, your duty is to judge others? I didn't think that was proper in your belief system. Hmm, I guess I learned something.

ILikeDubyah said:
My salvation rests in how good a person I am, and what I do to help others. Gay Marriage...definately a step down the wrong path. It's just like the whole AIDS deal. The majority of Catholics don't have/won't ever get or have anything to do with aids, however, the Catholic Church funds at least 10% of all Aids care & research worldwide....We do it because we care, and we want to help.

The majority of all people in this country "don't have/won't ever get or have anything to do with aids". So, what's your point?

And, can you give a source for how much the Catholic Church gives to AIDS research.

ILikeDubyah said:
You're seeing me being against gay marriage as a negative thing, but I see it only as positive, as My beliefs, my morals, my values, and my religion tell me it's wrong. To have something that I personally, and many many people collectively find wrong SANCTIONED by the government, federal, state, or local is wrong.

So, you think that it's alright for the majority to trample the rights of the minority?

ILikeDubyah said:
You're right, technically, it should be legal for them to marry....I'm just glad it's not, and hopefully it never will be. And actually, the only time I dwell on this subject is when somebody asks me about it. I'm not one of those people at rallies saying it's wrong, or anything like that. There is no need for that right now, as it's still illegal. More than likely it'll be put to vote again, and people in support of it will lose again. I only need concern myself with the people I come into contact with or care about at the moment.

Does this mean that you won't concern yourself about the people devestated by the hurricane? Or any of the people who need help around the world if you don't know them? Wonderful Christian attidude.
 
Re: Gay marriage

this is endless and pointless. Basically Gays as well as straight have THE RIGHT to their sexual prefernce. To gay bashers: Do gays hurt you? Why do you care about gays? Simply...what they do is none of ur business plus it does no harm. SO LEAVE THEM ALONE.
 
Re: Gay marriage

y not peace? said:
this is endless and pointless. Basically Gays as well as straight have THE RIGHT to their sexual prefernce. To gay bashers: Do gays hurt you? Why do you care about gays? Simply...what they do is none of ur business plus it does no harm. SO LEAVE THEM ALONE.

The problem with your statement is in the fact that the religious majority is never content to allow others to be different. There is a reason they call their followers sheep. Stupidity and obedience are traits they look for. Which brings me to my point. The whole reason I'm drawn to this thread is because it is a religious issue not political. There is no political reason to deny gays equal rights. Unless, of course, you base your political views on that well know book of fiction.

It will be a constant attempt to remove the speck from the eyes of others citing their differences as sin. More and more people are making a stand against those with planks in their eyes. As a result those who consider themselves the righteous whine about being oppressed because not everyone share their views and they press their attacks on the rights and values of others.

History has shown this to be a repeating occurrence. The roman empire, the wholesale slaughter of the Jews , the enslavement of colored men and the persecution that followed the emancipation, Japanese imperialism, and the dening homosexuals their equal civil rights to name a few. All using religion to justify their deeds. All relying on superior military or domestic power to enforce. All, in the end, morally wrong.

Christians who started as the oppressed , learned the leasons well, and have become the oppresors.

:soap
 
Re: Gay marriage

ILikeDubyah said:
jallman said:
.I find even the idea of homosexual relationships immoral, disgusting & just plain wrong...not only against the laws of God, but the laws of nature too. So, for leftists, even if you believe Science over God...you should STILL see that it's wrong.

The facts are that animals have gay relationships and that homosexuality is natural(see the web addresses I posted on this forum eariler). So, do you plead stupid or were you lying? And it's not science over your god, it is fact over fiction.


Duke
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom