• 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.

Why Gay Marriage is a Church Vs State Issue

Status
Not open for further replies.
rivrrat said:
I didn't need to 'see'.... I already know. Do YOU see?

Are you capable of comprehending that people's sex lives are their own and just because they differ from yours that doesn't mean their commitment to each other is inferior?

Or are you only capable of comprehending that your way is the only way to do things?
Click to expand...

You can have sex with whomever you want, rivrrat, but marriage is for the purpose of exclusivity and stabilization of society. If your view of commitment is one that DEstabilizes..."marriage" ain't for you. Have some OTHER thing that gives you what you want but doesn't mess with the cultural institution called marriage. Your POV aims to DECONSTRUCT basic tenets of civilization. You have every right to express your views, but expect that some of us are going to say enough is enough.

There is no reason to destroy traditional marriage to get what you think is appropriate. Have what you want, but call it sompthin' else--Leave MY marriage ALONE.
 
Felicity said:
You can have sex with whomever you want, rivrrat, but marriage is for the purpose of exclusivity and stabilization of society. If your view of commitment is one that DEstabilizes..."marriage" ain't for you. Have some OTHER thing that gives you what you want but doesn't mess with the cultural institution called marriage. Your POV aims to DECONSTRUCT basic tenets of civilization. You have every right to express your views, but expect that some of us are going to say enough is enough.

There is no reason to destroy traditional marriage to get what you think is appropriate. Have what you want, but call it sompthin' else--Leave MY marriage ALONE.
Click to expand...

Explain to me in simple terms how having sex with someone other than my spouse "destabilizes" the entire American society. Especially considering it makes both me and my spouse happier, closer, and more commited to one another. Also, explain to me how doing said act will affect your marriage in any way.
 
Felicity said:
This whole issue of "marriage" for the gay community is muddy. The gay community (and BTW--I HATE that word "community" for this purpose, but I can't think of a better word--it's like saying those in the amputee community or those in the redhead community...but anyway)...the gay community does not have a concensus on what "marriage" means to them. For instance, many don't believe monogamy is necessary. village voice > nyclife > The Queer Issue: Beyond Gay Marriage: The Next Battle for Acceptance by Corina Zappia

What does marriage mean? - Salon


Monogamy is a central intention of the marriage commitment--in the abscence of the intention to "forsake all others" the stabalizing nature of marriage is compromised and the whole thing disspates to a "benefits package."
Click to expand...

I have pretty much just been watching this thread for a bit and staying out of it because I need to keep myself focused on the arguments AGAINST gay marriage for purposes of my reverse debate with Jerry.

However...I have to interject here...

A lot of heterosexuals don't have any consensus as to what marriage means to them. And monogamy isn't central to all hetero marriages either. Ever been to Mardi Gras? Ever hear of swinger's clubs? Ever hear of the near 70% infidelity rate among marriages now?

It seems like you are just equivocating at this point and totally ignoring REALITY in favor of ideals.
 
jallman said:
I have pretty much just been watching this thread for a bit and staying out of it because I need to keep myself focused on the arguments AGAINST gay marriage for purposes of my reverse debate with Jerry.

However...I have to interject here...

A lot of heterosexuals don't have any consensus as to what marriage means to them. And monogamy isn't central to all hetero marriages either. Ever been to Mardi Gras? Ever hear of swinger's clubs? Ever hear of the near 70% infidelity rate among marriages now?

It seems like you are just equivocating at this point and totally ignoring REALITY in favor of ideals.
Click to expand...
I hate WHAT those people are doing to marriage! It's THAT attitude that it's okay to have "swinger's clubs" or pre-nups or "open-marriages" etc...etc...etc...that has brought the institution to such a low regard as it is. I think those people that want to engage in that kind of thing should opt for the civil union (or whatever you wanna call it) and stay out of "marriage" also.


BTW--the VAST MAJORITY of different gendered married people view sexual exclusivity and "till death do they part" the ideal and INTEND to be faithful when they take vows...is that true for the vast majority in the gay community?


I see there's a new movie out called "license to wed" or something--with Robin Williams...anyone know what's up with that? The premise sounds interesting!
 
Last edited:
rivrrat said:
and more commited to one another. .
Click to expand...
HOW does it make you more commited? You are the woman that says if you're not feeling "happy" and you want to leave a relationship...LEAVE. How is that "committed?"
 
Donkey1499 said:
I'm claiming Hypgnostic was insulting people of the Vatican. They are clearly not "drag queens", at least not in public.
Click to expand...

Well they do wear dresses...

And considering the number of lawsuits, a good percentage of them like little boys so...

You do the math.
 
Cephus said:
Well they do wear dresses...

And considering the number of lawsuits, a good percentage of them like little boys so...

You do the math.
Click to expand...

Nevermind...it's clear you don't know what you're talking about:roll:
 
Felicity said:
Nevermind...it's clear you don't know what you're talking about:roll:
Click to expand...

You're welcome to point out where I was wrong.

Oh wait, you just work by blind assertion, never facts. My bad.
 
Cephus said:
And that disproves anything I said... how?
Click to expand...

"good percentage" "little boys"....whatever:roll: One instnace of abuse is bad enough so I'm not gonna argue how bad is bad....
 
jallman said:
Ever hear of swinger's clubs? Ever hear of the near 70% infidelity rate among marriages now?
.
Click to expand...

This 70% infidelity thing irks me--first...would you source this? And second, to compare "infidelity" to purposeful intent to NOT be monogamous is apples and oranges. True, though, that infidelity is rampant and abominable--due a good deal (IMHO) to society's basic trend toward secularization of EVERYTHING, rampant political correctness, the entitlement mentality, and relative morality.
 
Felicity said:
I hate WHAT those people are doing to marriage! It's THAT attitude that it's okay to have "swinger's clubs" or pre-nups or "open-marriages" etc...etc...etc...that has brought the institution to such a low regard as it is. I think those people that want to engage in that kind of thing should opt for the civil union (or whatever you wanna call it) and stay out of "marriage" also.
Click to expand...

But the fact is, they don't have to; they can still get married. That is reality. And to question the intentions of homosexuals who want to marry or to regard their interest as less valuable because there is no consensus among them about things like monogamy is to fall victim to the whole "people in glass houses" scenario.

BTW--the VAST MAJORITY of different gendered married people view sexual exclusivity and "till death do they part" the ideal and INTEND to be faithful when they take vows...is that true for the vast majority in the gay community?
Click to expand...

Yeah well, tell that to revelers at Mardis Gras and to the thousands of broken marriages due to infidelity. They may SAY they regard that ideal, but their actions say otherwise.
 
Felicity said:
This 70% infidelity thing irks me--first...would you source this? And second, to compare "infidelity" to purposeful intent to NOT be monogamous is apples and oranges. True, though, that infidelity is rampant and abominable--due a good deal (IMHO) to society's basic trend toward secularization of EVERYTHING, rampant political correctness, the entitlement mentality, and relative morality.
Click to expand...

Blaming relative morality is a cop out, honestly. Relative morality in no way dictates that your morality has to shift because of anyone else's. Gimme a minute; I am looking for that statistic. It's been a while since its been referenced around here.

Edit: here you go:

Infidelity Statistics
 
jallman said:
But the fact is, they don't have to; they can still get married. That is reality. And to question the intentions of homosexuals who want to marry or to regard their interest as less valuable because there is no consensus among them about things like monogamy is to fall victim to the whole "people in glass houses" scenario.
Click to expand...
at it's most basic core--different gendered marriage abides the purpose of the institution even if the people involved disrespect the privilidge and act contrary to it's purpose.



Yeah well, tell that to revelers at Mardis Gras and to the thousands of broken marriages due to infidelity. They may SAY they regard that ideal, but their actions say otherwise.
Click to expand...
Mardi-gras is homosexuals and heterosexuals being IDIOTS.;)

By saying marriages are broken due to infidelity, you admit that exclusivity is a basic expectation in "marriage."
 
jallman said:
Blaming relative morality is a cop out, honestly. Relative morality in no way dictates that your morality has to shift because of anyone else's. Gimme a minute; I am looking for that statistic. It's been a while since its been referenced around here.

Edit: here you go:

Infidelity Statistics
Click to expand...
I'm confused....:confused: These are the 1st two lines...looks like it's closer to 70% are FAITHFUL...please explain.


It's tough to get a handle on how many of us are having affairs, given the inherent secrecy.

22 percent of married men have strayed at least once during their married lives.
14 percent of married women have had affairs at least once during their married lives.
Click to expand...
 
Felicity said:
I'm confused....:confused: These are the 1st two lines...looks like it's closer to 70% are FAITHFUL...please explain.
Click to expand...


Read further.

-Conservative infidelity statistics estimate that “60 percent of men and 40 percent of women will have an extramarital affair. These figures are even more significant when we consider the total number of marriages involved, since it's unlikely that all the men and women having affairs happen to be married to each other. If even half of the women having affairs (or 20 percent) are married to men not included in the 60 percent having affairs, then at least one partner will have an affair in approximately 80 percent of all marriages. With this many marriages affected, it's unreasonable to think affairs are due only to the failures and shortcomings of individual husbands or wives."
 
Felicity said:
HOW does it make you more commited?
Click to expand...
More likely to stick it out through tough times.

You are the woman that says if you're not feeling "happy" and you want to leave a relationship...LEAVE.
Click to expand...
Of course, life is too short to live it being absolutely miserable.

How is that "committed?"
Click to expand...

Sorry, but commiting to someone doesn't mean that you're going to stay with them NO MATTER WHAT they do, say, or become. When the person you're with now is different than the person you started with, and you're miserable. Hell yeah, GTFO.
 
jallman said:
Blaming relative morality is a cop out, honestly. Relative morality in no way dictates that your morality has to shift because of anyone else's.
Click to expand...
You so love your relative morality :lol: ;) That's okay--I love my absolutist perspective.

How can I defend the defined principles of an institution when a relativist perspective does not allow for any concrete basis by wich to outline behaviors? Those people who a relativist and married and acting contrary to the institution justify their actions by their relativist perspective. And then people like you and the others jump all over those of us who want people to abide by a specific standard. You even use the relativists denigrating the institution against us by telling us "people in glass houses..." Well...the way those people denigrating marriage view the institution is NOT at ALL how I view the institution, nor is it how the institution has been functioning for over 95% of human history.
 
Felicity said:
at it's most basic core--different gendered marriage abides the purpose of the institution even if the people involved disrespect the privilidge and act contrary to it's purpose.
Click to expand...

No, at it's most basic core, different gendered marriage provides some legal and monetary compensation to those who intertwine their lives. There is no longer a basic core to the marriage institution. And yes, that is a retraction of an earlier assertion I made...the institution is gone in this society. It is now nothing more than a contract which happens to bar some and not others based on moral disapproval. Moral disapproval is not an acceptable judgment for the government to make.

Mardi-gras is homosexuals and heterosexuals being IDIOTS.;)

By saying marriages are broken due to infidelity, you admit that exclusivity is a basic expectation in "marriage."
Click to expand...

Then why are you barring just the homosexuals from marriage if you agree that its both acting like idiots?

No, I have admitted no such thing about exclusivity...you seized on semantics and nothing more.
 
rivrrat said:
More likely to stick it out through tough times.


Of course, life is too short to live it being absolutely miserable.



Sorry, but commiting to someone doesn't mean that you're going to stay with them NO MATTER WHAT they do, say, or become. When the person you're with now is different than the person you started with, and you're miserable. Hell yeah, GTFO.
Click to expand...

You're not committed....you should BE committed.:doh
 
Felicity said:
You're not committed....you should BE committed.:doh
Click to expand...

Wow... what a fantastic debate reply.

So, I should be committed because I think if someone is miserable doing something, they should stop doing it? :lol:
 
jallman said:
the institution is gone in this society.
Click to expand...
How can you make this sweeping assertion?


Then why are you barring just the homosexuals from marriage if you agree that its both acting like idiots?
Click to expand...
There are more people than those that go to Madi Gras:doh What's your thing with Mardi Gras?

No, I have admitted no such thing about exclusivity...you seized on semantics and nothing more.
Click to expand...
It is a legally justified reason for a person seeking divorce....THAT demonstrates it is an expectation in marriage.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom