• 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!

Judge throws out Pennsylvania's ban on gay marriage

And according to half the population in this country you don't own the definition to marriage for sure. The traditional one has been around for thousands of years. How old is your definition?

The age of a definition doesn't have any bearing on this. It simply doesn't matter how old the definition is. It is a personal definition.

And half of this country has a definition, that when used within our laws, violate the major law of our land, the US Constitution. So they may keep their personal definition for them, but you nor they can force everyone else to abide or be limited by it.
 
The Romans explicitly forbid Gay marriage.

It was against their laws and punishable by death.

Were there homosexuals and Pedophiles in Rome ? Sure, just like there are today everywhere.

The fact is it was written into their laws that governed their Society that marriage was between a man and a woman.

Try finding sources other than Wiki time.

Any clown can post crap on Wiki

I never said anything about gay marriage in Ancient Rome, I said homosexua SEX was legal in Ancient Rome. Never said anything about marriage. The whole purpose was to point that in terms of sexuality the world today and in the near past had shied away from anything homosexual whereas in the present we're starting to get more comfortable with homosexuality just like how the Ancient Romans had no issue with homosexuality.

Gay sex =/= Gay marriage

Homosexuality in Antiquity.: iCONN OneSearch for Colleges & Universities

Unfortunately this is the Connecticut search engine for academic sources, so I believe unless one lives in CT they cannot access it. However, it's a work titled "Homosexuality in Antiquity" and I'll give some quotes from it.

"Homoerotic behavior was an accepted part of
every ancient culture.*" -the very first sentence of the work

"In Egypt, Persia, the
Orient, Asia, Africa, Western Europe, the Mediterranean,
and pre-Columbian America, homosexual behavior was
common, and there is no evidence that any ancient society
ever punished anyone for sexual variance." -Page 1

"For Greek and Roman male citizens, gay affairs were
considered an accepted and expected aspect of civilized life." -Page 2

"But with the advent of repressive
Christianity, sexual attitudes did an about-face, and the taboo
against homosexuality extended its way along the shores of
the blue Mediterranean." -page 3

It appears Rome was rather open to homosexuality, homosexual marriage rites were not explicitly banned until the advent of REPRESSIVE CHRISTIANITY. They were not officially recognized by Roman Law but they weren't prohibited.

It's all the fault of Christianity, besides, once Christianity became the state religion Rome was already on the decline, in fact, West Rome vanished to leave only the Byzantine Empire, Christianity was hardly the history of Rome.

Alright, so all the **** you posted was not only FALSE, but you didn't even cite anything. Now since I was called upon to give an academic source I went on to Connecticut's search engine and found an academically acceptable source that specifically backed up my claim that the Romans had no issue with homosexuality and in fact...

"Many Greek philosophers extolled male love on the
ground that it was nobler, purer, and closer to the gods than
relations with women, the weaker and less clean vessels." -page 2

The Roman's highly esteemed Greek contemporaries even viewed it as a purer relationship than man and woman relationships.
 
The age of a definition doesn't have any bearing on this. It simply doesn't matter how old the definition is. It is a personal definition.

And half of this country has a definition, that when used within our laws, violate the major law of our land, the US Constitution. So they may keep their personal definition for them, but you nor they can force everyone else to abide or be limited by it.

Well thank you for making my case that government need not define marriage. Civil unions for all is as far as they should be involved.
 
This would be the best option but people want government in marriage for some reason.

Please tell me exactly how changing the word "marriage" within our laws to "civil union" is actually the best option. How does that alleviate any problems? You will simply be ticking off a different set of people. It will not in anyway change anything else. It won't make marriage any less part of government (only the name will now officially be "civil union"). It won't save anyone any money. In fact, it will cost at least a little bit of money to implement. Not to mention, such a step will be challenged in court. More money wasted.
 
Well thank you for making my case that government need not define marriage. Civil unions for all is as far as they should be involved.

Then we would be discussing how "civil unions" should be defined. You are just pushing the issue to a different word. It is mere semantics and it doesn't actually solve anything.
 
I live in a rural area and I know what I'm referring to. Take your blinders off....

It takes one hell of a set of blinders to make that kind of comparison.

The consequences of the destruction of the traditional Family unit are more apparent in inner city areas than any other location in America including rural trailer parks.

One is a real and perpetual tragedy that leads to poverty, dependence, drug abuse, crime, violence and a lack of education.

The other us a worn out sterotype, a dumb joke.
 
Then we would be discussing how "civil unions" should be defined. You are just pushing the issue to a different word. It is mere semantics and it doesn't actually solve anything.

Oh but it does solve much. You can no longer use judges and legislation to define marriage for me nor can I define it for you.
 
Which has nothing to do with the rights of consenting adults to marry.

It doesn't, what it does have to do with though is that unlike homosexuality, incest can lead to a rapid decline in the genetic fitness of a species which can lead to a multitude of problems. Hence why incestual marriages may not have to be banned but should be limited to marriages with no children (adoption allowed).
 
It takes one hell of a set of blinders to make that kind of comparison.

The consequences of the destruction of the traditional Family unit are more apparent in inner city areas than any other location in America including rural trailer parks.

One is a real and perpetual tragedy that leads to poverty, dependence, drug abuse, crime, violence and a lack of education.

The other us a worn out sterotype, a dumb joke.

That would be a problem caused by single parenting in impoverished conditions, not "the destruction of the traditional family unit". In fact, mother-father-children only family units are not nearly as "traditional" as you are making them out to be. The most traditional family unit is a highly extended family with many people, relatives specifically, involved in raising the children, helping the parents in many ways.
 
Oh but it does solve much. You can no longer use judges and legislation to define marriage for me nor can I define it for you.

No. It doesn't. All it does is shift the argument to how civil unions are defined.

No one is defining marriage for you personally. You are not forced to enter into a same sex marriage. Your personal definition of marriage can still exclude same sex couples on a personal level. You are free to believe that they aren't "really married".

I define my marriage. My husband and I and how we work our marriage defines our marriage. Your marriage should be defined by what you hold dear in your marriage. And other people's marriages should be personally defined by them.

The law defines marriage as a specific legal agreement to create a legal kinship of spousehood that comes with certain other rights, benefits, responsibilities, etc. That is how marriage is defined by the law. And that definition in no way prevents two people of the same sex from entering into it. Hell, right now, many people of the same sex enter into marriage legally without any problems with your marriage, unless you allow there to be problems.
 
It doesn't, what it does have to do with though is that unlike homosexuality, incest can lead to a rapid decline in the genetic fitness of a species which can lead to a multitude of problems. Hence why incestual marriages may not have to be banned but should be limited to marriages with no children (adoption allowed).

This isn't China. We don't nor should we decide who can reproduce.
 
This isn't China. We don't nor should we decide who can reproduce.

Actually, we do, to a very limited extent. Laws against incest have existed in this country for quite some time (pretty much since its founding). If people want to challenge those laws, they are free to do so. We also have laws that limit people of certain ages or positions from having sexual contact (which could lead to procreation) with certain others due to undue influence that can occur within such a relationship.

Is it possible that such challenges will result in changes to the laws? It absolutely could. I would support changes to laws that ban relationships between first cousins or further out given the small chance of genetic problems and the fact that most cousins in this country are not raised together so there is little chance of undue influence within the relationships.

Just like with any challenges, it will all depend on the state's argument for why such limitations exist and how they are actually furthering a legitimate state interest. The argument in this situation may or may not stand up to judicial scrutiny. We would have to see if challenged.
 
Yet we can try and decide who can marry?

Who is "we"? That would be you.

You made a suggestion for an approved marriage with a caveat that excluded reproduction. So you're advocating the conditions of marriage. I'm not.
 
No. It doesn't. All it does is shift the argument to how civil unions are defined.

No one is defining marriage for you personally. You are not forced to enter into a same sex marriage. Your personal definition of marriage can still exclude same sex couples on a personal level. You are free to believe that they aren't "really married".

I define my marriage. My husband and I and how we work our marriage defines our marriage. Your marriage should be defined by what you hold dear in your marriage. And other people's marriages should be personally defined by them.

The law defines marriage as a specific legal agreement to create a legal kinship of spousehood that comes with certain other rights, benefits, responsibilities, etc. That is how marriage is defined by the law. And that definition in no way prevents two people of the same sex from entering into it. Hell, right now, many people of the same sex enter into marriage legally without any problems with your marriage, unless you allow there to be problems.

What you fail to grasp is you have taken an fundamental institution in this country and turned it upside down by redefining the term marriage as it has been recognized for thousands of years. So if you can redefine marriage, why can't civil unions be redefined? In doing so your "marriage" can be defined any way you like it.
 
Who is "we"? That would be you.

You made a suggestion for an approved marriage with a caveat that excluded reproduction. So you're advocating the conditions of marriage. I'm not.

We refers to the government which not even a decade ago tried enforcing laws opposing gay marriage.

However, just like suicide is illegal, how is inbreeding (essentially long term suicide of your own gene and homicide of your successors) not supposed to be legal? Of course, being the much nicer person than most others I am fine with not only incestual marriage and sex, but even adoption for incestual couples to be able to raise children.
 
Well thank you for making my case that government need not define marriage. Civil unions for all is as far as they should be involved.


That would fine with me. It's a valid temporary compromise. Everyone will still call it marriage anyway and one or two generations down the road it will be just marriage anyway. But if that float's your boat I'm on board. My marriage to my wife of 27 will not be impacted one wit if the government calls it a marriage or union.


>>>>
 
We refers to the government which not even a decade ago tried enforcing laws opposing gay marriage.

However, just like suicide is illegal, how is inbreeding (essentially long term suicide of your own gene and homicide of your successors) not supposed to be legal? Of course, being the much nicer person than most others I am fine with not only incestual marriage and sex, but even adoption for incestual couples to be able to raise children.

I don't believe there should be conditions placed on marriage. That was you.

I also don't believe we have the right to decide who should have children.

I believe in people having the freedom to marry who they want and breed when they want assuming they can care for the child.

It isn't my business to decide on bloodlines.
 
What you fail to grasp is you have taken an fundamental institution in this country and turned it upside down by redefining the term marriage as it has been recognized for thousands of years. So if you can redefine marriage, why can't civil unions be redefined? In doing so your "marriage" can be defined any way you like it.

You are just continuing to assume that marriage in this country has never changed. It has many times. It changed when women got equal rights. It changed when divorce was opened up to not requiring a reason beyond "we want to split up". It changed when interracial couples were allowed to marry in every state. It changed when wives could have their husbands charged with rape.

There is no real reason to waste the time and money to make the change. And you won't likely get the support for such a thing. Those like me aren't going to support it (because it is pointless and makes those pushing for it look like pouting children) and those who are hardcore against same sex marriage aren't going to support it because they don't want to "legitimize" any same sex relationships. Plus, many simply don't want to give up their use of the word "marriage".
 
No. It is the people who are demanding that same sex marriage be made legal. The state has no power to change laws that are not challenged by the people.

Your discontent comes from the fact that you wish to keep laws that restrict marriage based on sex/gender in place merely because you don't think they "fit". Too bad.

Yeah people named Obama and Holder. But this whole thing is political anyhow.

President Obama Instructs Justice Department to Stop Defending Defense of Marriage Act calls Clinton-Signed Law “Unconstitutional” - ABC News
 
With all due respect (don't you hate when someone says that before a thought?), it's a long long long way from gay marriage rights to the civil rights movement.

How so? IMO they are being treated like 2nd class citizens here....just like when blacks had to sit separately or use different bathrooms.
 
Those involved in interracial marriages did not redefine marriage. Same sex marriage does. Big difference. Like I mentioned in another thread, what states will likely end up doing is do away with marriage altogether making them civil unions for legal purposes only. That way no one can redefine marriage for everyone.

Yes, they did redefine marriage in places where marriage 'only meant couples of the same race.' that is how it was defined there. Otherwise, how could it have been illegal?
 

People were pushing for same sex marriage to be legal long before Obama or Holder. It has been political ever since DOMA and before. It was political from the very first time that some state decided that same sex couples could not enter into marriages the same way that opposite sex couples do.
 
Why bother? because you and others have decided that marriage needed to be redefined even though a good portion of the people do not agree with your new definition. By the government only dealing in civil unions, the individual can define marriage as he she sees fit. The only purpose the government needs is some status of your union for legal purposes and a civil union would be quite sufficient.

That 'definition' of marriage means exactly the same thing to gay couples. And that 'definition' of marriage changes absolutely nothing about anyone else's marriage...past, present, or future.

Was your only purpose in marrying for legal reasons? It's not just that for gays either. They want to marry for the exact same reasons as straight people and it means the same to them too. OTOH, they are *entitled* to the same benefit and legal protections.
 
Back
Top Bottom