• 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.

How to counter the top 4 arguments against gay marriage.

jamesrage said:
They are being treated equal.If any man reguardless of race religion or creed wishes to marry any woman reguardless of race,religion or creed he may do so as long as they are not related or under age.
Click to expand...


ROFL, you know, if your going to argue a point it'd at least be helpful if you knew what you were talking about, alas ignorance like yours knows no bounds. Now onto the subject of love and marriage.

A man regardless of anything else is NOT allowed to marry a woman if love is not involved. This is not my interpretation but that of the United States legal system. I'm sure your scratching your head trying to understand this, so I'll help you out.

Lets say I am a heterosexual male who wishes to marry a heterosexual female of non-American birth. If marriage were merely a legal relationship with certain tax and legal benefits/repercussions there would be no problem and this would be a simple matter. That is not the case. For me to marry said person, and not be liable for certain penalties (fines imprisonment etc), I would have to prove to the government, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that me and said women were in fact in love and had been so for some time. Government inspectors CAN and may be sent to my/our residence to investigate such a marriage and may rule said marriage to be legal or illegal based upon their observations and judgement as to whether or not me and my spouse truly love one another, or are merely co-habitating for monetary and social reasons. This has been proven to be constitutional and as such puts the government into the position of legitimizing and legalizing loving relationships. As such the government is not only regulating the legal benefits and repercussions of marriage, but also making a value judgement on love as well. If the government only legitimizes heterosexual relationships this is equal to the government making and enforcing a value determination that love is only possible in a heterosexual context.

While you obviously have your own views about the legitimacy of homosexual marriage, are you really going to stand up and say that homosexuals are incapable of love? Who gives you the right to say that a homosexuals love is any less valid than that of a heterosexual? Are you now going to proclaim to be the mouthpiece of the divine and proclaim that your interpretation of love is universal? Talk about arrogance.
 
The Pi Pirate said:
4) The "slippery slope" argument
Why don't all the dire predictions sure to follow appear in countries where gay marriage exists already?

I paraphrased some of this from elsewhere.
Click to expand...


Oh yea the "slippery slope" argument is the most overused excuse to outlaw marijuana, gay marriage etc..I would like to know where there is evidence gay marriage, is evil and will make you kids turn tricks behind a dumpster and get blow jobs from men? My opinion is....homosexuals should be allowed to be married..love is love to me..its sad the issue isnt happiness only what is "the norm" it seems that straight people are the ones who cant stay in relationships over petty ****...homosexuals understand each other and they dont compete with each other for power like hetrosexual couples do...Let anyone get married regardless of sexual orientation...just 50 years ago interracial marriages were outlawed...you think our society would grow up and accept everyone...
 
torch said:
homosexuals understand each other and they dont compete with each other for power like hetrosexual couples do...
...
Click to expand...

I didn't think about any arguments pro or contra. But I have to put this argument by torch as the one against gay marriage. though i don't know if torch is saying truth about gays. I don't know him.

You mean a marriage, a couple without a competition? A couple without a fight? Where is all the fun, all the meaning? no, no ,no
 
justone said:
I didn't think about any arguments pro or contra. But I have to put this argument by torch as the one against gay marriage. though i don't know if torch is saying truth about gays. I don't know him.

You mean a marriage, a couple without a competition? A couple without a fight? Where is all the fun, all the meaning? no, no ,no
Click to expand...


ROFL, if being gay guaranteed a conflict free relationship there'd be a line around the block.

no matter what kind of relationship there will always be competition for different types of power.
 
The Pi Pirate said:
OK, this issue has probably...........paraphrased some of this from elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Until you prove homosexuality has benefits, it is hardly justifiable to expect gay marriage rights.
 
jimmyjack said:
Until you prove homosexuality has benefits, it is hardly justifiable to expect gay marriage rights.
Click to expand...
I can prove that abortion has justifiable benefits (less money paid by parents in the long haul), is that the litmus test?
 
shuamort said:
I can prove that abortion has justifiable benefits (less money paid by parents in the long haul), is that the litmus test?
Click to expand...

No, there are no economic benefits because they lose out in the end when they need to get their pensions, those that would normally pay the taxes for the pensions are dead; there are definitely no financial benefits.
 
two people living together, presumably supporting each other, and therefore deserving of tax breaks

oh goody, more of the entitlement mentality.
 
zymurgy said:
two people living together, presumably supporting each other, and therefore deserving of tax breaks

oh goody, more of the entitlement mentality.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is good especially when they have sex in order to have children who will help contribute taxes in the long run, and keep the population from economic collapse.
 
jimmyjack said:
No, there are no economic benefits because they lose out in the end when they need to get their pensions, those that would normally pay the taxes for the pensions are dead; there are definitely no financial benefits.
Click to expand...
Sure there is. More money is paid out having a child than not having one. Your pension is not going to be more than $170,460.00.
 
jimmyjack said:
Yes, that is good especially when they have sex in order to have children who will help contribute taxes in the long run, and keep the population from economic collapse.
Click to expand...

The actual act of giving tax breaks to families might be economically sound but that is not what I was critical of. I am posting particularly about the idea that it is "deserved".
 
jimmyjack said:
Yes, that is good especially when they have sex in order to have children who will help contribute taxes in the long run, and keep the population from economic collapse.
Click to expand...

Pity about straight couples who choose not to have children, are infertile or elderly, then. Better stop them from marrying.
 
jimmyjack said:
Until you prove homosexuality has benefits, it is hardly justifiable to expect gay marriage rights.
Click to expand...

Well then, by the same token until you prove freedom of speech has benefits, it is hardly justifiable to expect we accept your right to post the nonsense you post.
 
jallman said:
Well then, by the same token until you prove freedom of speech has benefits, it is hardly justifiable to expect we accept your right to post the nonsense you post.
Click to expand...

Its your god given right to speak your mind.

Is it now your god given right to file a joint tax return? Or to have cheap legal contracts?

Pretty lame argument!
 
zymurgy said:
Its your god given right to speak your mind.

Is it now your god given right to file a joint tax return? Or to have cheap legal contracts?

Pretty lame argument!
Click to expand...

No, but it is your god-given right to be equal to your peers in every way. That means, if you as a heterosexual get to form unions which give you cheap legal contracts and joint tax returns with a person of your choice, then as a homosexual having a god given right to equal participation, I should have the same.

What is lame is that you are belittling your own institutions in order to exclude a group from taking part. Its lame to cut off your nose to spite your face.
 
jallman said:
No, but it is your god-given right to be equal to your peers in every way. That means, if you as a heterosexual get to form unions which give you cheap legal contracts and joint tax returns with a person of your choice, then as a homosexual having a god given right to equal participation, I should have the same.

What is lame is that you are belittling your own institutions in order to exclude a group from taking part. Its lame to cut off your nose to spite your face.
Click to expand...

BS. This liberal mindset about being equal in everyway is ridiculous.

Every man has the right to marry. Every women has the right to marry. Even though it doesn't need to be so, men and women are equal in every way in regards to marriage.

What you are wanting is for us to say we can't discriminate based on social decisions which is total crap. We can, do, and always will discriminate based on lifestyle choices. To say an individual can't do so is the real enemy of freedom.
 
shuamort said:
Sure there is. More money is paid out having a child than not having one. Your pension is not going to be more than $170,460.00.
Click to expand...

Yeah, let’s see how much money you will have when all the population stop having children, I wonder who will pay the taxes to fund the pensions, the USA is already $8,406,274,541,231.23 in debt and that figure is going up and up.
 
jallman said:
Well then, by the same token until you prove freedom of speech has benefits, it is hardly justifiable to expect we accept your right to post the nonsense you post.
Click to expand...
Please make sense so I can reply to your statement.
 
jimmyjack said:
Yeah, let’s see how much money you will have when all the population stop having children, I wonder who will pay the taxes to fund the pensions, the USA is already $8,406,274,541,231.23 in debt and that figure is going up and up.
Click to expand...
My pension is funded by myself and my company. Your argument doesn't make any sense.
 
zymurgy said:
What you are wanting is for us to say we can't discriminate based on social decisions which is total crap. We can, do, and always will discriminate based on lifestyle choices. To say an individual can't do so is the real enemy of freedom.
Click to expand...

One's religion is a social/lifestyle choice. I suppose you won't mind mind me firing Christians from my hypothetical company, then? I have the freedom to do so, after all.
 
vergiss said:
One's religion is a social/lifestyle choice. I suppose you won't mind mind me firing Christians from my hypothetical company, then? I have the freedom to do so, after all.
Click to expand...

As a private citizen I certainly have the freedom to only work for a christian boss, or a gay boss, or a female boss.

Business owners should certainly be afforded the same rights.

Welcome to libertarianism.
 
zymurgy said:
BS. This liberal mindset about being equal in everyway is ridiculous.

Every man has the right to marry. Every women has the right to marry. Even though it doesn't need to be so, men and women are equal in every way in regards to marriage.

What you are wanting is for us to say we can't discriminate based on social decisions which is total crap. We can, do, and always will discriminate based on lifestyle choices. To say an individual can't do so is the real enemy of freedom.
Click to expand...

You are the one who brought up god-given rights, so dont blame me when you cant play ball. Our constitution states that all men are equal, but it seems when it comes to state endorsed marriage, you want some to be a little more equal than others huh?

In fact, the Kansas Supreme court just set precedence this past year when they ruled that "moral disapproval is not grounds for making a legal decision". You may discriminate on a personal level, but you may not discriminate on a social level. To do so goes against everything our country was built upon.
 
jallman said:
You are the one who brought up god-given rights, so dont blame me when you cant play ball. Our constitution states that all men are equal, but it seems when it comes to state endorsed marriage, you want some to be a little more equal than others huh?

In fact, the Kansas Supreme court just set precedence this past year when they ruled that "moral disapproval is not grounds for making a legal decision". You may discriminate on a personal level, but you may not discriminate on a social level. To do so goes against everything our country was built upon.
Click to expand...

Yes, I brought up god given rights.

You perverted those rights to benefits granted based on certain lifestyle choices. The argument ends with that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom