• 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.

Should we allow heterosexual marriage? (1 Viewer)

Urethra Franklin

Urethra Franklin

Folle
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
3,579
Reaction score
980
Location
European Union
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
So many hetty relationships end in divorce.
So many hettys cheat on their partners (look at Clinton).
So many cases of child abuse within 'families' are reported. It's believed that 90% of paedophiles are heterosexual.
Heterosexuals are clearly the most unstable group of people.
Surely we can't let them continue?
 
Those are good points. If there's going to be conditions in which homosexuals can't marry because, it violates the sanctity of marriage then, there should adleast be conditions for heterolsexuals who also violate the sanctity of marriage by devorcing and marrying over and over again.
 
The whole point of gay marriage debate is to take the focus off the COMPLETE FAILURE of marriage as an institution. Where is the heated debate / constitiutional crisis about the failure of marriage. If all these people are so holy and rightous, are they the 'sinful' ones for failing to practice what they preach. If marriage is so sacred, shouldn't we be clamouring for legislation to execute anyone who dare break the vow.

Fried Rice For A Happy World
F.R. today with prawn
 
Fried Rice said:
If marriage is so sacred, shouldn't we be clamouring for legislation to execute anyone who dare break the vow.

Fried Rice For A Happy World
F.R. today with prawn
Click to expand...

Don't put ideas in their heads. It'll be law in Texas tomorrow.
 
Urethra Franklin said:
Don't put ideas in their heads. It'll be law in Texas tomorrow.
Click to expand...

You mean it isn't already? :eek:
 
Pacridge said:
Oh no! Now all of Britain will be in distraught. Surely this will mean the end of all civilization in Britain. First the Romans, then the Greeks. Et Tu Naughty, Et Tu?
Click to expand...

Yes, Britain about to go down the toilet!

Perhaps GWB should invade?
 
Naughty Nurse said:
Yes, Britain about to go down the toilet!

Perhaps GWB should invade?
Click to expand...

What are you nuts? You guys actually do have WMD's. He's not about to invade a country that actually does have them. Gzz, what are you smoking?
 
Pacridge said:
What are you nuts? You guys actually do have WMD's. He's not about to invade a country that actually does have them. Gzz, what are you smoking?
Click to expand...

:rofl

There goes my US soldier fantasy ;)
 
Urethra Franklin said:
Don't put ideas in their heads. It'll be law in Texas tomorrow.
Click to expand...








I know it is fashionable to bash Texas given who our current President is, BUT do facts matter? Texas may lead the nation in sentencing and executing people but do you realize that even in Texas from 1977 through 2002 there were ONLY 289 death penalty executions.

I say ONLY because in that time there was a MINIMUM of 1,200 murders PER YEAR. Many years were over 2000, others were were close. There have been moratoriums and other delays, but the facts show, the death penalty in the "worst" state is used sparingly.

Interestingly this probably helps to make it less effective.

Punishment needs to be quick, sufficiently potent, and consistent to be effective.

I'm against the Death penalty because I think it has too many flaws in our current system, but can we please dispense with jokes that perpetuate misnomers?

On topic, we should strenthen marriage by many means including making people who divorce within a short period pay back any tax benefits.

Also, increase the benefits of marriage with lower taxes, real estate discounts, and other perks throughout society.

Civil society should demand more patience, and counseling before marriage if we are giving civil benefits.



Craig Farmer
making the word "liberal" safe again
www.newliberals.org
 
craigfarmer said:
I know it is fashionable to bash Texas given who our current President is, BUT do facts matter? Texas may lead the nation in sentencing and executing people but do you realize that even in Texas from 1977 through 2002 there were ONLY 289 death penalty executions.

I say ONLY because in that time there was a MINIMUM of 1,200 murders PER YEAR. Many years were over 2000, others were were close. There have been moratoriums and other delays, but the facts show, the death penalty in the "worst" state is used sparingly.

Interestingly this probably helps to make it less effective.

Punishment needs to be quick, sufficiently potent, and consistent to be effective.

I'm against the Death penalty because I think it has too many flaws in our current system, but can we please dispense with jokes that perpetuate misnomers?

On topic, we should strenthen marriage by many means including making people who divorce within a short period pay back any tax benefits.

Also, increase the benefits of marriage with lower taxes, real estate discounts, and other perks throughout society.

Civil society should demand more patience, and counseling before marriage if we are giving civil benefits.



Craig Farmer
making the word "liberal" safe again
www.newliberals.org
Click to expand...

Real estate discounts? I'm a little lost. How exactly would that work?
 
craigfarmer said:
,
Also, increase the benefits of marriage with lower taxes, real estate discounts, and other perks throughout society.
Click to expand...

Marriage is such a non-starter that you have to bribe people to make it attractive? Doesn't surprise me.

I propose that we're all taxed the same, regardless, and that we give no unfair disadvatages to people on the grounds of their civil status. If people want to marry I have no problem with that, whether they're gay or straight, but nobody should be given an easy ride just for being married. You live in a country, you pay the same rate of taxation as everyone else.
 
Urethra Franklin said:
I propose that we're all taxed the same, regardless, and that we give no unfair disadvatages to people on the grounds of their civil status. If people want to marry I have no problem with that, whether they're gay or straight, but nobody should be given an easy ride just for being married. You live in a country, you pay the same rate of taxation as everyone else.
Click to expand...
I completely agree with you.

Moreover, I think the US state and federal laws need to be stripped of the word marriage and replaced with the secular word civil union. A civil union would grant the same basic rights and allowances that a marriage does without the religious connotation. Considering that religion has become a deciding role for some in the debate over gay marriage and that congress cannot enact laws that favor a religion, it would make sense. Should a couple want to get married in a church, that's their own business. The government can recognize it as a civil union and that will be legally binding. (This is already done in France where couples need to get legally unioned before they can be married in a church. A religious ceremony may only be performed after the civil ceremony. The minister, priest or rabbi will require the certificate of civil marriage (certificat de célébration civile) as proof that the civil ceremony has taken place. )
 
Urethra Franklin said:
Do you realise who you just said that to?
Are you ill?
Click to expand...
Yeah, go figure. Apparently, I can put aside personal animousity when it comes to facts in a debate.
 
Urethra Franklin said:
Horrible United Statesianism
You describe me so well
You suffer the typical United Statesian disease - you have no sense of humour and irony escapes you.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry that your obvious sole recourse in an intellectual argument would be ad hominem attacks. In a battle of wits, you seem to only come half prepared. Quite sad.
 
Urethra Franklin said:
So many hetty relationships end in divorce.
So many hettys cheat on their partners (look at Clinton).
So many cases of child abuse within 'families' are reported. It's believed that 90% of paedophiles are heterosexual.
Heterosexuals are clearly the most unstable group of people.
Surely we can't let them continue?
Click to expand...


Stepping back to the the original statements.

I believe you are correct in many if not all of these. It should be noted however in the US heterosexuals have a 90%-97% population advantage over homosexuals so are more likely to be observed in any type of behavior good or bad.

source:http://www.avert.org/hsexu1.htm

I did not find anything concerning worldwide populations but the numbers may be applicable to a world population of about 6.5 billion.

I would like to see a proportionate study concerning criminal/mental health behaviors. That might be interesting regardless of the outcome. Anyone have any studies available?
 
akyron said:
I would like to see a proportionate study concerning criminal/mental health behaviors. That might be interesting regardless of the outcome. Anyone have any studies available?
Click to expand...
I think that there'd be a lot of problems with any studies that based criminal/mental health behaviors and activities based on sexuality.
A couple reasons:
1)Except for in cases of sexual crimes (rape, molestation et al), sexuality is not noted as it is not germane.
2)Due to the "closet" as it were, statistics could be skewed.
3)Since sexuality isn't binary, it'd be a hard one to completely suss out. There are people that have slight bisexual leanings or are full-on bisexual.
4)We'd have to find correlation between the crime and the person's sexuality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom