• 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!

DC City Council votes to legalize gay marriage

EpicDude86 said:
The divorce rate would like a word with you...
Click to expand...

Oh come now be fair.

The national divorce rate covers everyone.

What's the divorce rate among the religious conservative (typical anti-gm'ers).
 
EpicDude86 said:
It is not legal when it is denying homosexual marriages things like the insurance benefits and other 'bonuses' of being married on the basis of how they like to get jiggy.
Click to expand...
Sure it is. We deny those same things to people who choose to be single.

We also legislate all sorts of inequalities in the tax code.
 
Taylor said:
What does it want to say?
Click to expand...

Marriage isn't as sacred or important as it used to be, state sanctioned or otherwise. Not in this country at least.

Taylor said:
Well, for one -- without a recognition of marriage, there's no basis for spousal rights.
Click to expand...

Just like some homosexuals have no basis for them now?
 
Taylor said:
Sure it is. We deny those same things to people who choose to be single.
Click to expand...

I would hope we don't give spousal benefits and things that make married life easier to single people. That'd be daft!

Taylor said:
We also legislate all sorts of inequalities in the tax code.
Click to expand...

:lol: Which you usually have to earn or qualify for...
 
Taylor said:
It would change society, and therefore affect everyone. If marriage were inconsequential, suuporters would see no reason to lobby for it.
Click to expand...

You didn't answer my question. How would a gay marriage affect someone who is not gay?


Taking government out of marriage is a recipe for disaster. But more to the main point - I don't believe I've stated any view for or against gay marriage in this thread. Rather, I've been expressing a view strongly in favor of the debate being decided by voters rather than politicians.
Click to expand...

I would agree and do not support taking government out of marriage.

And politicians are supposed to listen to the will of the voters. We did elect them.


Semantics. Roe v. Wade didn't change the constitution, but it certainly changed the law, making abortion legal.
Click to expand...

Which is what I said. A new situation arose, therefore the Constitution was used to address it.


This is not relevant to the point I made.
Click to expand...

I don't agree.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
You didn't answer my question. How would a gay marriage affect someone who is not gay?
Click to expand...
All sorts of ways ranging from how people view such relationships to preferential adoption to taxes to a whole myriad of things.

How could it NOT affect you?
 
Taylor said:
As with marriage.
Click to expand...

Having a different kind of intercourse should not deter one from earning marriage; because a lot of marriages, by that standard, are just as "bad", if not worse, than homosexual marriages.
 
Taylor said:
All sorts of ways ranging from how people view such relationships to preferential adoption to taxes to a whole myriad of things.

How could it NOT affect you?
Click to expand...

He's not homosexual, nor does he care what people do in their bedrooms on their own time. So he's not affected.


EDIT: Your Socratic method isn't getting this debate anywhere.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I quoted him and paraphrased. You're denying.
Click to expand...
Haha -
You misinterpreted the point of my earlier statement and are now trying to cover your butt! I see right through it whether you wish to admit it or not.
 
Taylor said:
All the more reason to promote it.
Click to expand...

Which of the versions of Marriage do you want to propose? Many cultures have a polygamist marriage system. Should we take their definition? Many people from those cultures live in America.

Marriage is something that is vastly different from culture to culture, and is not something that should be defined by the state, for it would imply issues with those cultures that do not define marriage as between one man and one woman.
 
ScottD said:
Which of the versions of Marriage do you want to propose? Many cultures have a polygamist marriage system. Should we take their definition? Many people from those cultures live in America.

Marriage is something that is vastly different from culture to culture, and is not something that should be defined by the state, for it would imply issues with those cultures that do not define marriage as between one man and one woman.
Click to expand...

Polygamy: More common than you'd think.

From Wikipedia:
"According to the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook, of the 1231 societies noted, 186 were monogamous. 453 had occasional polygyny, 588 had more frequent polygyny"..."even within societies which allow polygyny, the actual practice of polygyny occurs relatively rarely"..."Similarly, within societies that formally prohibit polygamy, social opinion may look favorably on persons maintaining mistresses or engaging in serial monogamy."

Ethnographic Atlas Codebook:
http://eclectic.ss.uci.edu/~drwhite/worldcul/Codebook4EthnoAtlas.pdf

(Note, this post is one example of how to cite a reference or information source)
 
ScottD said:
Which of the versions of Marriage do you want to propose? Many cultures have a polygamist marriage system. Should we take their definition? Many people from those cultures live in America.
Click to expand...
No we should not take their definition.

ScottD said:
Marriage is something that is vastly different from culture to culture, and is not something that should be defined by the state, for it would imply issues with those cultures that do not define marriage as between one man and one woman.
Click to expand...
It's precisely something that should be defined by the state. Why not promote what brings about a healthy society? If America had promoted polygamy over monogamy, we never would have achieved the status we have today.

You mention that "many people from those cultures live in America" -- for the most part, they consist of poor, uneducated people who rely on handouts from mainstream culture to survive.

If by not promoting that sort of lifestyle we "imply issues" -- all the better.
 
Jerry said:
Will the policies leave with them?
Click to expand...

Sure. If people are pissed about it, they can vote the city council and mayor out of office next time they're up for election. Then the new city council and mayor can repeal those laws. Thus is the nature of a republic. See how that works?
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
"the people" did not ask to vote. A few people did.
Click to expand...

Our founding fathers valued the opinion of the minority, as long as they had sufficient signatures to petition, there should have been a vote. If it is truly the "will of the people" for gay marriage to be allowed, then the GM advocates have nothing to worry about.

That aside, as a Catholic myself, I have difficulty accepting the church doctrine on this issue. I don't understand how you can define "fertility" as in the line "go forth and be fertile" from the book of Genesis which to my understanding is the primary Biblical basis for the anti-gay marriage movement, as simply the ability to produce offspring. By that reasoning, infertile couples should not be able to marry either. I would welcome correction on this issue as I must admit I have not made extensive study of Church doctrine in this regard.

In spite of this, I think that a more moderate solution to the gay marriage question is in order. The government does not have the right to interfere in the personal lives of U.S. citizens and sanction or deny ANY marriage, homosexual or heterosexual, not does it have the authority to tell religious bodies who they can or cannot marry. That said, the government should issue civil unions to ALL couples, gay and straight. These would not be the truncated civil unions currently present, but basically the legal equivalent to what is now a marriage license. As I said before, these would be issued to both homo- and hetero-sexuals. From this point, religious organizations (churches, synagogues, etc.) could decide who they will and will not marry according to their own beliefs. Such is the nature of freedom of religion and separation of church and state. Thus all people are equal under the law and all people are free to practice their own beliefs.
 
Taylor said:
All sorts of ways ranging from how people view such relationships to preferential adoption to taxes to a whole myriad of things.

How could it NOT affect you?
Click to expand...

It wouldn't affect me in the least.

But in addressing what you said, please tell us how GM would affect how YOU view relationships, how it would create preferential adoption, or how it would affect YOUR taxes.
 
Taylor said:
Haha -
You misinterpreted the point of my earlier statement and are now trying to cover your butt! I see right through it whether you wish to admit it or not.
Click to expand...

No, I am pointing out how he said exactly what I said. It's not my fault if that harms your argument.
 
Taylor said:
No we should not take their definition.


It's precisely something that should be defined by the state. Why not promote what brings about a healthy society? If America had promoted polygamy over monogamy, we never would have achieved the status we have today.

You mention that "many people from those cultures live in America" -- for the most part, they consist of poor, uneducated people who rely on handouts from mainstream culture to survive.

If by not promoting that sort of lifestyle we "imply issues" -- all the better.
Click to expand...

I placed in bold the important part and the reason why either GM or gay civil marriage should be legalized.
 
As we see DC become the fifth 'locale', joining 4 other states, it appears clear why a national amendent would have made sense during Bush's first term. Many who oppose same sex marriage opposed an amendment to our Constitution, this would have prevented this issue from being yanked from constitutent's decisions-making processes

Where I support this as it's a 'legislative move', it isn't the standard legislature as DC isn't a state. Congress holds ultimate authority, and there is a DoMA law currently written, my guess is Democrats will forego and ignore the law signed by President Clinton and approve ssm anyway torching off much more debate.

...and why...like my state...an amendment to the state constitution defining marriage and specifically not recognizing other state's decisions on this matter become even more critical. We the People need to define what marriage is...not a court....not some Executive Mayor or some House member...We the People must remain the ultimate deciders, we're the one's who need to specifically define and make laws pertaining and regarding marriage. End of story.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
Sure. If people are pissed about it, they can vote the city council and mayor out of office next time they're up for election. Then the new city council and mayor can repeal those laws. Thus is the nature of a republic. See how that works?
Click to expand...

So no the policies don't leave with them.

Some of these things can not be repealed once enacted.
 
Charles Martel said:
We the People need to define what marriage is...not a court....not some Executive Mayor or some House member...We the People must remain the ultimate deciders, we're the one's who need to specifically define and make laws pertaining and regarding marriage. End of story.
Click to expand...

"We the People" also includes many homosexuals who have defined theme selves as married.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom