• 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!

Gay marriage is approved by popular vote in Maine, Maryland

But here's the thing, that "limit of acceptability" is changing, it's moving. That's not because of me or because of you, it's because of what is now a majority of Americans who are saying and believing something different.

You see marriage as a different thing than most people do, okay, so everyone else should follow your narrow vision? That's my point right there, people view marriage differently from person-to-person. There's no way to prove that "traditional marriage" is inherently right. Just because it's what has dominated society for thousands of years doesn't mean it's inherently correct. This is something even pro-slavery folks would have said too, "it's the tradition, so it's inherently right".

That is the crux of the matter. In a government for and by the people when the people change the government changes. I hold that tradition for marriage is between a man and a woman but I don't hold that tradition cannot change. People steadfastly against gay marriage are going to lose the battle.
 
Look, I am not advocating allowing incest so please don't get me wrong, but I was addressing the legitimacy and equivalence of the presented argument that among consenting adults, how does it vary? Using the well it's bad for you genetically argument doesn't fly as extensive studies have been done in this area in the last 20 years and nothing really conclusive has been determined one way or the other. I agree that psychologically there is a legitimate argument for reasons against it, and that's good enough for me, but whether your moral idignation is religiously based or scientifically based makes a huge difference when arguing the facts.


Tim-

Well, the genetic abnormality wasn't my argument against it. I was simply responding to the comment that it doesn't create genetic abnormalities.
 
But you were ok with changing the definition of marriage to allow inter-racial marriage. So don't pretend that you are always against changing the definition of marriage. You are only against changing it when you don't agree with the change.



If you bring something new to the table except the same old stale **** I will debate it with you......
 
If you bring something new to the table except the same old stale **** I will debate it with you......

There is really nothing to debate. Gay marriage is coming to Washington St and the sky didn't fall.
 
he's doing a poor job of trying to advance the fallacy that they are the same thing.

If THAT was what he was trying to do....I would say an EXTREMELY poor job of advancing the fallacy. Weak.....
 
Is it legal to marry a parent or sibling for anyone else?
The incest laws haven't changed.

Why is incest even involved? Why couldn't two relatives get married in a non sexual situation for the benefits they would get in such marriage.......Maybe they are already living together.
 
If THAT was what he was trying to do....I would say an EXTREMELY poor job of advancing the fallacy. Weak.....

Its not a fallacy. Its a valid argument. Anyone should be able to get married to anyone they want. Its all about freedom.
 
Why should something not matter simply because it doesn't fix every problem? Or even just not the problems you personally care about. There's a lot of couples in this country, of consenting adults who love one another, who want to marry but can't. Why is their plight so irrelevant?

Uh, because he's not gay. There are many issues that affect small groups of people that most others don't care about. For instance, do you care if my retirement plan is suddenly changed during my last year in the Marine Corps? Probably not. But it means a lot to me.
 
First cousins should be allowed to get married. They are not normally raised together, so no intimate relationship aversion should be expected to result and there increased risk for genetic problems for first generation first cousins' offspring only increases from the average couple about 2%, which isn't that significant (the average couple has about a 2% risk of genetic problems, first cousins is about 4%).

I predict that this will very likely be the next fight for marriage we see and it probably won't even be that big. I'm willing to bet that there will be very few who are actually against this, at least compared to other types of relationships and their fights (interracial, same sex, more than 2, siblings). Heck, Sarah and Abraham of the Bible were married and they were half-siblings. More states now allow first cousins to get married than those that allow same sex couples to marry.

All of my first cousins are male... and Tigger? *shakes head* jeez.
 
Well, the genetic abnormality wasn't my argument against it. I was simply responding to the comment that it doesn't create genetic abnormalities.

Well then what is your argument against it, and how does it vary from same sex marriage in principle?

Tim-
 
Now we have to see what happens in the courts...............

Surely you don't mean to say that opponents of gay marriage should sue to stop this, do you?

Baw-baw-bawt I thought you hated activist judges, legislatin' from the bench?
 
Surely you don't mean to say that opponents of gay marriage should sue to stop this, do you?

Baw-baw-bawt I thought you hated activist judges, legislatin' from the bench?

Whatever the SCOTUS decides is good enough for me.
 
Uh, because he's not gay. There are many issues that affect small groups of people that most others don't care about. For instance, do you care if my retirement plan is suddenly changed during my last year in the Marine Corps? Probably not. But it means a lot to me.

But that doesn't mean we should trivialize it just because it doesn't affect us. I'm white and comfortably middle class. Most of the problems facing poor black families won't affect me. I should still care about those issues, though. And I do care if your retirement plan gets screwed over. We should work to improve everything, not just our personal issues.
 
I believe that everyone should have freedom of choice whether I agree with those choices or not. It is not all about me or any one person.
 
Not true...The SCOTUS does not like to interfere in states rights.........Constitutional amendments are much harder to break then DOMA............DOMA has already been overturned in 6 states.

On a side note the last activist judge in Iowa who approved SSM was voted out last night..........

Where do you get your 'news'? Because most of the time it seems to be flat out wrong

Iowa Retains Judge Who Opposed Gay Marriage Ban
 
I don't currently see any significant movement for plural marriage.

There's no reason for there to be. There is no real legal opposition to it in most states. You can do it now, almost everywhere.
 
Whatever the SCOTUS decides is good enough for me.

Deja vu. This is no different than when you said that you would be fine with repeal of DADT if the soldiers were okay with it and later if the military leadership was okay with it. Once it became apparent that an overwhelming majority of soldiers and the military leadership did not care and believed it would have no impact on the military you moved the goal posts again. The reality is that you are lying to yourself NP. SCOTUS could strike down every state constitutional ban on same sex marriage and the federal government could repeal DOMA and it would still not be "good enough" for you. You don't oppose same sex marriage because you think it is harmful, you do it because you personally find homosexuality to be disgusting and repulsive. Stop with the lying and just be honest and open with yourself.
 
But that doesn't mean we should trivialize it just because it doesn't affect us. I'm white and comfortably middle class. Most of the problems facing poor black families won't affect me. I should still care about those issues, though. And I do care if your retirement plan gets screwed over. We should work to improve everything, not just our personal issues.

Sorry brother. I don't agree. You can't care about the plight of every single person in the world. It's impossible. The attitude that a person, group of people, or a nation should care about every single injustice in the world is what got the United States into the state it's in. We can only spread so far. To be clear, by care I mean something that you feel you need to take action on. Does it bug me that gay people can't marry? Yes, from a freedom stand point it does. Do I care enough to go march in a parade or write letters to Congressmen about it? No, I don't.
 
Surely you don't mean to say that opponents of gay marriage should sue to stop this, do you?

Baw-baw-bawt I thought you hated activist judges, legislatin' from the bench?

Why not, when the referendum in California denied SSM the left is appealing it.........What is good for the goose is good for the gander my left wing friend..stay tuned..........
 
In states where gay marriage is legal, is it legal for a man to marry his brother or father?

I guess you think that is a cute or clever question.

Each state defines what level of relationship is allowed to marry. In some states, cousins can. Others they cannot. One, if I remember correctly, allows marrying a 1st cousin, but not a 3rd degree cousin.

I don't believe any state allows marrying a biological parent or biological sibling.
 
Back
Top Bottom