Poll: Should Same-Sex Marriages be Legalized Nationally?

Page 2 of 79 FirstFirst 12341252 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 1181

Thread: For or Against Gay Marriage

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,628
    Quote Originally Posted by JPSartre12
    It would create an illegal unfunded mandate by forcing businesses (and us) to include yet another group as beneficiaries for healthcare, SS, Medicare, etc.,
    Majority oppression. The fisical sitatuion of the entire country is more important then giving equal rights to the gays. The majority denying rights to the minority is majority oppression no matter how you cut it. Give me another one.

    Bunch of lies, fallacies and majority oppression arguments by Jaaaman

    Further weaken the family unit, the best defense against a government that continues to encroach in our lives more and more
    Lies. The family unit has been decimated by the high levels of single mothers, single fathers, abusive parents, neglective parents, high rates of divorce, rising rates of infeditelity, and those are just a few examples. Besides, as we have seen, many of those being married in Oregon and Massachuests have been together for years, some over 20 years. People who are aganist agay marriage often ignore that fact but at the same time call for stability. If a relationship can surivive for 20+ years, there must be a solid foundation. As for child raising, children are no more likely to be gay then straight under any parentage. The American sociology report has found no conclusive evidence pointing to problems of gay parenting. Besides, if marriage WAS about rasing children, life in America would be radically different. As for best defense aganist intrustive government, that would lie in community interaction in the government and a constant fight for civil rights. Family has little to do with government intrustiveness. Next.

    Encourage more people to continue their homosexual behavior rather than to re-channel their desires toward normal sexuality.
    Your point is? The very foundation of Western Society was completely accepting of homosexual relations. Also, a significent amount of straights practice anal sex. And who exactly defines "normal sexuality?" What we do today would be enough to lock you up or have you killed 300 years ago. Fallacy.

    Will encourage children to experiment with homosexuality. This will put more kids at risk for HIV, hepatitis A, B and C, gay bowel syndrome, and sexually transmitted diseases.
    Fallacies. That only will happen with a complete lack of any sexual education. Besides, that argument can easily apply to straights. Do you really believe that legalizing marriage, a known partner reducer, will increase disease transfer? Laughable argument to say the least. What will put more kids at risk for diseases is lack of education. Besides, if you wanted to lower all of that, you'd turn off the TV and stop going to PG-13/R movies. Kids associate sex with movies and TV far more then the stingy old concept of marriage. Your argument is in the wrong direction. And you argument is essentially a lie. All of your listed diseases have exploded in hostilely gay countries, and countries with little sexual education. What does that say?

    Will put more children at risk of being put into unfit households as adoption agencies abandon the current practice of favoring married households and begin placing more children in motherless or fatherless households.
    American sociology report says you have a argument based on lies. They have found nothing conclusive even remotely supporting that argument.
    Google "American sociology, does the sexual preference of parents matter?"
    Know what? I'll link it for you. It says you have no argument

    Homosexual households are more prone to domestic violence.
    Lies. And I believe someone else has proved it for me. Therefore, I won't waste time disprove your lies.

    Pit the law and our government against the millions of people who believe homosexuality is wrong
    You just admmited majority oppression. What the majority believes is irrevelant in terms of equality under the law. The majority has, is, and will be wrong. Simply because more people believe in something does not make it right. This theme is repeated throughout history. Test me if you wish to be crushed.

    Create grounds for further attacks on the freedom of speech and religion.
    Irrevelant. Besides, this is another majority oppression argument. Would you want to remove all of the hate speech aganist blacks? How about latinos? How about Jews? Because you seem to represent the majority, it is okay to bar the rights of the few because them majority, at this point, think it is right.

    Every argument aganist gay marriage boils down to lies, fallacies and majority oppression.

  2. #17
    JPSartre12 Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Duo_Maxwell
    Majority oppression. The fisical sitatuion of the entire country is more important then giving equal rights to the gays. The majority denying rights to the minority is majority oppression no matter how you cut it. Give me another one.
    Denying rights to a mythical group that doesn't exist except in some activist judge's mind? I can live with that.
    Bunch of lies, fallacies and majority oppression arguments by Jaaaman
    ..........
    Is it a lie that making gay marriages legal automatically gives the new group rights to another's SS survivor benefits, eliminates inheritance tax on estates, forces corporations to either provide family healthcare for all or none? Which of these costs is false? I'd like to know since you seem to have all of the answers.
    Every argument aganist gay marriage boils down to lies, fallacies and majority oppression.
    Answer my arguments above and we'll continue the debate. Note that my argument is purely based on economics and I don't feel it's necessary to go into the immorality of the fiscal underpinnings. Legalizing gay marriage is simply an attempt to get something for nothing, regardless of the moral issues.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    4,715
    Quote Originally Posted by JPSartre12
    Denying rights to a mythical group that doesn't exist except in some activist judge's mind? I can live with that.
    So you are saying gay people don't exist?

    Quote Originally Posted by JPSartre12
    Legalizing gay marriage is simply an attempt to get something for nothing, regardless of the moral issues.
    More so than straight marriage? I don't follow....

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,628
    Denying rights to a mythical group that doesn't exist except in some activist judge's mind? I can live with that.
    So now gays don't exist? The anti-marriage side has reached a new low! Denying the existance of a what they are aruging aganist! I didn't think you guys could go that low. I was sadly mistaken.

    Is it a lie that making gay marriages legal automatically gives the new group rights to another's SS survivor benefits, eliminates inheritance tax on estates, forces corporations to either provide family healthcare for all or none? Which of these costs is false? I'd like to know since you seem to have all of the answers
    Now you're just making up ****. I never said any of those were lies. If you clearly remember, but apparently you don't, I called that argument majority oppression, not lies. You are fabricating a argument that did not exist.

    Ah, here's MY QUOTE.
    Majority oppression. The fisical sitatuion of the entire country is more important then giving equal rights to the gays. The majority denying rights to the minority is majority oppression no matter how you cut it. Give me another one.
    The fiscal argument is one of majority oppression, not lies.

    Legalizing gay marriage is simply an attempt to get something for nothing, regardless of the moral issues.
    Explain how straight marriage is any different.

  5. #20
    JPSartre12 Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by jitobear
    So you are saying gay people don't exist?
    No, I'm saying that legal gay marriages don't exist so that group doesn't exist.
    More so than straight marriage? I don't follow....
    Society has determined that heterosexual marriage was an institution that was worth giving incentives to promote. The same can't be said about gay marriages if the majority of Americans are against them.
    If that's not the case and the majority of Americans want to promote changing marriage to include gay marriages then I say "fine", let's put it to a vote. But gays don't want a national referendum because they know that they'd lose, so they try to coerce liberal politicians and judges to circumvent the law.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,628
    No, I'm saying that legal gay marriages don't exist so that group doesn't exist.
    Are you sure you write for a living?

    No one said married gays in America exist. We were talking about the group as a whole, a group you called mythical, giving the impression that you did not believe gays exist.

    Society has determined that heterosexual marriage was an institution that was worth giving incentives to promote.
    And society had determined that homosexual relations were a institution that greatly benefited the whole in the past, and as long as they were kept in line, they were promoted. You know, you say you are older, and pathetically use the "I'm older then you therefore I am right" argument, but it astounded me how little history you actually know.

    The same can't be said about gay marriages if the majority of Americans are against them.
    Thank you for admitting your argument lies primarily upon majority oppression. Every anti-argument boils down to three things: Lies, fallacies and majority oppression; each and everyone one.

    But gays don't want a national referendum because they know that they'd lose, so they try to coerce liberal politicians and judges to circumvent the law.
    Replace gays with blacks, slaves, irish, and every minority group in America and look what you are saying. You have just admitted that for a minority to gain rights, they must do it under the constitutional law. let me guess, you're voting bush right? Nothing better then to strip all non-white non-christians of any and all rights they have fought for it the past isn't it?

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,628
    yawn. Not much of a challenge here.

    Remember: The anti argument revolves around Lies, Fallacies and Majority Oppression.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by Duo_Maxwell
    Replace gays with blacks, slaves, irish, and every minority group in America and look what you are saying. You have just admitted that for a minority to gain rights, they must do it under the constitutional law. let me guess, you're voting bush right? Nothing better then to strip all non-white non-christians of any and all rights they have fought for it the past isn't it?
    It is an affront to African-Americans to say having past generations being prevented from taking a drink from a public water fountain or being sprayed down by fire hoses in a public park was on par to laws preventing a man from marrying another man. The comparison is shameful.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,628
    Well, I take the opinion of the widow of Martin Luther King Jr over your's. She's a adamant pro-gay marriage supporter. Try spin that one.

    Here's some highlights in case you don't believe me.

    The widow of Martin Luther King Jr. called gay marriage a civil rights issue, denouncing a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban it.

    Constitutional amendments should be used to expand freedom, not restrict it, Coretta Scott King said Tuesday.

    "Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protection, whether by marriage or civil union," she said. "A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriages."
    http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/n...vilrights.html
    http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...marriage_x.htm
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C293...5082%2C00.html

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    310

    For or Against Gay Marriage

    I think their point is that homosexual tax payers should not benefit from marriage benefits as the heterosexual community will receive more benefits if they don't include homosexual life partners in the benefits.

    The points about disease and stuff...don't have any, my partner doesn't have any so that isn't an issue for us and for a lot of homosexual couples. Besides, there are a lot of heterosexuals out there with diseases and the government doesn't stop them from getting married.

    Kids...we don't have any, won't have any.

    I still don't see how allowing more people to marry will lead to further weakening of the institution of marriage. That is the most insane argument I've ever heard before. It started with that guy Falwell that the Christians like and watch every night. He started all that...just made it up one day in the back of his limmo while inhaling a line of cocaine and feeling up one of his female cult members.

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    2,345
    Quote Originally Posted by Duo_Maxwell
    Well, I take the opinion of the widow of Martin Luther King Jr over your's. She's a adamant pro-gay marriage supporter. Try spin that one.

    Here's some highlights in case you don't believe me.



    http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/n...vilrights.html
    http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...marriage_x.htm
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C293...5082%2C00.html
    It's not just her either, other African American civil rights leaders including Julian Bond(NAACP) support equal marriage for gay and lesbian people....

    http://www.sacobserver.com/news/0203...e_equity.shtml

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,628
    I think their point is that homosexual tax payers should not benefit from marriage benefits as the heterosexual community will receive more benefits if they don't include homosexual life partners in the benefits.
    This is a classic majority oppression argument.

    JakeCJB: But it's always nice to come back with someone very close to King, notice how they ran away from that post.

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    14
    Don't support it on two reasons:

    1. Marraige is a church institution. As such, they should be the ones who decides what is and is not appropriate. I firmly believe that all marraiges should be handed back to the church, and the government should have nothing to do with it.

    2. Saying the federal government has rights over the state government on most matters is not something that should happen. The only thing the federal government should do is deal with foreign nations, and keep states from fighting. That is it. If you want gay marraiges, go to CA or Mass. ost of the people around here don;t want it, why should someone in Washingto tell us how to deal with social issues?

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,628
    1. Marraige is a church institution. As such, they should be the ones who decides what is and is not appropriate. I firmly believe that all marraiges should be handed back to the church, and the government should have nothing to do with it.
    FALLACY ALERT, FALLACY ALERT!!!

    I hate to break it to you, but modern marriage is anything but religion. A couple must purchase a marriage lisence from the state (that word is going to appear alot in this post) they are getting married in. Many weddings are done with a state judge or federal judge conducting the ceremony. More then a few are conducted on state or federal land/buildings. The marriage is not legal until all the state and federal paper work is done and submitted. More then a few states require the marriage to be consumated before it is legal in the state. Modern marriage revolves around state and federal benefits. Millions of marriages are conducted outside of a religious context. True, I also believe the state and feds should get out, but for the time being, modern marriage is not a religious institution.

    2. Saying the federal government has rights over the state government on most matters is not something that should happen. The only thing the federal government should do is deal with foreign nations, and keep states from fighting. That is it. If you want gay marraiges, go to CA or Mass. ost of the people around here don;t want it, why should someone in Washingto tell us how to deal with social issues?
    That isn't really a issue though aganist gay marriage, it's a federalist anti-federalist argument, with some aspects of Adam Smith thrown in. They shouldn't, however, there is a thing called full faith and credit in the bill of rights that superseceded state laws. Without it, this country would be pretty chaotic.

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,109
    They shouldn't, however, there is a thing called full faith and credit in the bill of rights that superseceded state laws.
    Where is marriage in the bill of rights? What is not mentioned in the bill of rights is for the states to decide. The feds have over stepped there powers laid out by the founding fathers. The feds were to provide for the common defense, work on issues with foreign governments, and regulate interstate issues. All other issues were to be decided by the states.
    I ONLY APPOLIGE FOR MY SPELLING!

    federal code defining the militia, look it up for your self.
    Title 10, Subtitle A, Part I, chapter 13, Sec. 311.

    “To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.” — Theodore Roosevelt.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •