APP - My Official Position on Conservative Candidates Signing onto the NOM Pledge

Mott the Hoople said:
That's right Winter and I think I have the logic behind this figured out.

See straight couples can terminate a pregnancy with an abortion. Gay couples will never have the need to have an abortion. With that being the case gay couples don't require the same level, degree and scope of regulation of their behavior that straight couples require. Civil unions is an acceptable, affective and lesser level of regulation for them. But straight couples may be tempted to terminate a pregnancy and need a much higher level of regulation and licensing then gay couples do. Thus the "Creator" requires them to obtain a marriage license so that they may be properly regulated. Does that make any sense?
Click to expand...

It makes as much sense as the opposing position.
 
Marriage is not an "inalienable right" ...if it were, brothers could marry sisters. We have all kinds of restrictions on who can get married. You can't get married if you are already married, you can't marry a person who has deceased, can't marry someone who doesn't want to marry you back, can't marry under a certain age, you can't marry immediate family members... you can't marry non-humans. If marriage were an inalienable right, this would not be the case, you could marry anyone at any time under any condition. So this is the first point of order we must comprehend before we go any further in this debate, marriage is NOT an inalienable RIGHT!

Then there is the matter of definition. Marriage is the specific union in matrimony, of one man and one woman. Anything else, is NOT traditional marriage, it is a perversion of marriage. You can't redefine what IS. It's like trying to claim the Moon and Sun are equivalent, on the basis that both are in the sky, appear to be the same relative size, and provide illumination.... they are still different, and the Moon can't be the Sun, ever. We can change the name of the Moon to the Sun, and it still doesn't make them equal, because they are what they are, regardless of what we call them. What you call "gay marriage" is simply "homosexual companionship" and nothing else. It can't be marriage, even if you want to call it that, because marriage has a specific criteria which homosexual unions can't meet.

No marriage license in the US requires you to affirm you aren't homosexual. That would have to be the case for gays to be denied the right to marry. As far as I know, gay people have the same opportunity to marry a person of the opposite sex, as everyone else. Although, there are still restrictions which apply, regardless of your sexuality. Inalienable rights can not be granted with restriction, they are inalienable. This reinforces the fact that marriage is not an inalienable right.
 
Dixie said:
Marriage is not an "inalienable right" ...if it were, brothers could marry sisters. We have all kinds of restrictions on who can get married. You can't get married if you are already married, you can't marry a person who has deceased, can't marry someone who doesn't want to marry you back, can't marry under a certain age, you can't marry immediate family members... you can't marry non-humans. If marriage were an inalienable right, this would not be the case, you could marry anyone at any time under any condition. So this is the first point of order we must comprehend before we go any further in this debate, marriage is NOT an inalienable RIGHT!

Then there is the matter of definition. Marriage is the specific union in matrimony, of one man and one woman. Anything else, is NOT traditional marriage, it is a perversion of marriage. You can't redefine what IS. It's like trying to claim the Moon and Sun are equivalent, on the basis that both are in the sky, appear to be the same relative size, and provide illumination.... they are still different, and the Moon can't be the Sun, ever. We can change the name of the Moon to the Sun, and it still doesn't make them equal, because they are what they are, regardless of what we call them. What you call "gay marriage" is simply "homosexual companionship" and nothing else. It can't be marriage, even if you want to call it that, because marriage has a specific criteria which homosexual unions can't meet.

No marriage license in the US requires you to affirm you aren't homosexual. That would have to be the case for gays to be denied the right to marry. As far as I know, gay people have the same opportunity to marry a person of the opposite sex, as everyone else. Although, there are still restrictions which apply, regardless of your sexuality. Inalienable rights can not be granted with restriction, they are inalienable. This reinforces the fact that marriage is not an inalienable right.
Click to expand...

Try to look at the upside Dixie. Just think how much you could lower the abortion rate if you let gay couples get married!
 
SO SM, are you running scared or will you actually answer one of the questions I have asked?
 
Damn Yankee said:
'Are you (a) or will you (b).' Two, and only two choices.
Click to expand...

Some questions with two answers are valid. Asking whether or not you believe that the Creator mentioned in the DoI is the christian God is not an example of the bifurcation fallacy. It is not a fallacy. It is a simple question. Either you believe that or you do not, or you are not sure. Are you incapable of answering? If there is more to it than that, then type an answer that fits what you believe.

Also, how are we "defying the Creator"?



SM, there was a time when you actually debated topics. Now I have to work to get you away from arguing about the debate itself. You state what you want to state, and then avoid any details, explanations, or discussion. Are you that scared? lol
 
What third? He asked a yes or no question. Do you believe that the founders were specific to Christianity when they said "Creator" in founding documents?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top