• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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.

Hypothetical Poll about Hetero/Homosexuals

Please read the question below, as it was too long for this box

  • Heterosexuals (I have no problem with them)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Homosexuals (I have no problem with them)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    14

McWilliamson

New member
Joined
Nov 28, 2005
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
In a Utopian island, far away from civilization as we know it, would you have a problem allowing these orientations to be "together"? Note that the question does not concern law of any kind. It only addresses their being a couple before their own eyes.



Also please answer these questions (if you would like to):

1. What did you vote?
2. Should they be able to live together?
3. Should they be able to marry?
4. Should they receive benefits based on their state of being a couple from work? (Married couples benefits) (In American society, not the utopia)
5. Should they be recognized on a state/federal level? (Same scenario as #4)



Here are my thoughts:

1. I have no problems/concerns with homosexuality or heterosexuality.
2. Sure, they should be able to live together.
3. Sure, let them marry. Marriage (at least to me) is an institution that recognizes people who love and support each other. So why not?
4. No. Couples' benefits are moot in our society. No one should get them. What's the point? Right, right, to support the other partner should the working partner be deceased. Today, though, both partners can work...so the benefits should be dismissed altogether for both orientations.
5. Yes. (Granted that federal/state governments should know)
 
Last edited:

Bustabush

Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
80
Reaction score
0
Location
Broward Community Collage
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Also please answer these questions (if you would like to):

1. What did you vote? No problem with both.
2. Should they be able to live together? Yes
3. Should they be able to marry? Yes
4. Should they receive benefits based on their state of being a couple from work? (Married couples benefits) (In American society, not the utopia)
No one should.
5. Should they be recognized on a state/federal level?
(Same scenario as #4)

Yes
 

McWilliamson

New member
Joined
Nov 28, 2005
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
From what I can tell from these five votes, no one actually cares whether or not homosexuals do what they want to together in their own world of privacy. Which tells me that no one (at least so far) believes that there is something inherently wrong with homosexuality. Does anyone disagree?

Personally, I can see where it is obviously funny (because I don't want to use a word with an ounce of severity) that members of the same sex should be together. They cannot reproduce. However, I also see that these couples (in our world) could (in a somewhat brutally logical way of thinking) serve as adoptive parents, whom are necessary givers (not to say that they would adopt only because they felt obligated) that have the responsibility of raising children who otherwise would go through the foster care program (of which I know nothing about).

While it can be argued that there is an inherent wrong with homosexuality, I do see a practical need for parents who cannot reproduce.
 
H

hipsterdufus

1. What did you vote? No problem with either (actaully I have problems with both, but it has nothing to do with their sexuality :mrgreen:
2. Should they be able to live together? Yep
3. Should they be able to marry? Yep - I think you should make the term "marriage" a totally religious term - and have the rights of marriage something granted by the government. That way churches can discriminate if they want, and gay couples can have the rights due to them.

4. Should they receive benefits based on their state of being a couple from work? Gay rights should be mandated by federal law the same way they abolished slavery and ended women's sufferage. The rights couples need aren't always evident but they include visitation rights, estate rights, child rearing rights etc.

5. Should they be recognized on a state/federal level? Yep
 

Stace

Boobie Jubilee
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2005
Messages
7,255
Reaction score
364
Location
Clarksville, TN
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
1. What did you vote? Both (Have no problem with either)
2. Should they be able to live together? Of course!
3. Should they be able to marry? If they wish to do so, I see no problem with it at all
4. Should they receive benefits based on their state of being a couple from work? (Married couples benefits) (In American society, not the utopia) Yes, they should
5. Should they be recognized on a state/federal level? (Same scenario as #4) Again, yes

I'm heterosexual, and I don't have a problem with homosexuality....it's not for me to judge who someone else falls in love with or what they do together. Marriage is essentially a partnership, and I don't see why homosexual couples can't be afforded the same rights taken for granted by heterosexual couples.
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
1. What did you vote? No problem with either.
2. Should they be able to live together? Absolutely.
3. Should they be able to marry? Absolutely.
4. Should they receive benefits based on their state of being a couple from work? (Married couples benefits) (In American society, not the utopia) Absolutely.
5. Should they be recognized on a state/federal level? (Same scenario as #4) Absolutely.

I believe that as citizens of the United States, we should be entitled to the same benefits on a state and federal level. A church is free to say that they won't marry members of the same sex, but a state (nor the feds) cannot discriminate based upon someone's sexual preference.
 

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
McWilliamson said:
While it can be argued that there is an inherent wrong with homosexuality, I do see a practical need for parents who cannot reproduce.
Lesbians can reproduce. They'd just need to "borrow" sperm from someone.
 
Top Bottom