• 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!

The Face of Gay Marriage? Video clip from Maine newscast

Marriage is not about equality as gay-marriage is not a civil rights issue. It never was. Also, his military service has absolutely nothing to do with gay-marriage in any way. Shame on pro-gm for using this vet as a tool.

Speaking of tools...
 
Marriage is not about equality as gay-marriage is not a civil rights issue. It never was. Also, his military service has absolutely nothing to do with gay-marriage in any way. Shame on pro-gm for using this vet as a tool.

It has much to do with gay marriage and freedom in general. If it wasn't for men like him defending our country throughout history we wouldn't be a free country because we would be defeated.

My grandfather fought in Vietnam and before he died 2 years ago I asked him what it was like. It is nothing compared to anything you will see depicted in a Hollywood movie, it's much worse. The events that happened during wars haunt soldiers for the rest of their lives and they dream about it every night they sleep.

I know you may disagree with gay marriage but to say that this man is using his military service as a tool for an agenda is outrageous.
 
Marriage is not about equality as gay-marriage is not a civil rights issue. It never was. Also, his military service has absolutely nothing to do with gay-marriage in any way. Shame on pro-gm for using this vet as a tool.

Wow....vets aren't allowed to have an opinion on gay marriage?
 
Wow....vets aren't allowed to have an opinion on gay marriage?

Of course they aren't allowed to have an opinion, unless of course it is in support of gays nor being allowed to serve openly in the military or anti-gay marriage. Then the anti-gay marriage folks will support them having an opinion on it.
 
every adult should be able to marry the adult of their choice..

Are they being stopped, arrested, or prosecuted in any way for declaring their lifelong committment to their significant whatever in front of their friends and family?
 
Are they being stopped, arrested, or prosecuted in any way for declaring their lifelong committment to their significant whatever in front of their friends and family?

Not exactly the same thing is it?
 
Not exactly the same thing is it?

Was that a yes or a no?

If there is a yes then there is a problem and it needs to be addressed.

If no then its not about marriage at all is it? Its about ganking more money out of a goverment that does nothing....creates nothing...has no inherent value..they have to TAKE money in order to give it to other people. I am against stealing in general and on principle.
 
Last edited:
Was that a yes or a no?

If there is a yes then there is a problem and it needs to be addressed.

If no then its not about marriage at all is it? Its about ganking more money out of a goverment that does nothing....creates nothing...has no inherent value..they have to TAKE money in order to give it to other people. I am against stealing in general and on principle.

And what do you think married couples do now? So I guess you are against marriage then right? Because married couples now take from the government as well.
 
This is what I think about the upcoming Maine vote. I think most people, when asked, will say they support gay marriage. What's not to support? :shrug: But I think, as with California, when people get into a booth anonymously, they will vote how they really feel. This is one of those issues where people will say one thing but believe another. I think it will be a good gauge on just how liberal Maine really is.

Me? I support GM. I just don't see the issue. However, if I did not support it, I know I would have a ton of labels thrown at me. I don't like the idea of influencing opinion by intimidation, and that's what I see in this debate (not in this thread). Understand though that geographically, I'm not going to run into a bunch of skinheads and Bible belters, so I'm not seeing the other side of the intimidation issue.
 
Bend over, I'm driving. j/k

On a serious note, there's no getting around the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Gay marriage is not only fine, it should be recognized as the law. For my conservative friends out there you should realize that there are a significant number of gay conservatives who would join you in a second if this issue were eliminated.
 
Last edited:
of course it's about equality.

No it isn't about equality. You can't have more equality than 100% equality and currently the marriage laws in all 50 states are applied 100% equally across the board regardless of race, ethnicity, country of origin, gender, sexual orientation, political party, or socioeconomic circumstances.

That a law does not include every provision that we would like to have included is irrelevent. A 15-year-old may be a much better driver and more responsible than a 30-year-old, but when the law says that you must be 16 to receive a driver's license, the other facts are irrelevent.

Many 16 and 17 year olds are more mature and more ready for marriage than many 30 year olds too, but when the law says that you must be 18 or get parental consent to marry, it might seem unfair or even unreasonable, but it is not a matter of equality when the law is applied equally to everybody.

There is no right to drive at age 15, no right to marry before age 18, and no right to marry anybody you want or anybody you love. The law restricts your right to marry only if you are unmarried and of legal age, the other person is unmarried and of legal age, there is no close blood relationship, and the other person is of the opposite gender and consents to the marriage. There is no requirement for any kind of religious affiliation or ceremony--that is an extra layer added by some religions or personal preferences. There is no requirement that you be able to afford to get married or that you even like each other, much less love each other.

It would be great if each and every one of us could tailor whatever laws to fit what would best suit us, but that is not feasible and still have a workable social contract in a democratic republic.

The issue is about changing the definition of marriage to something different than it is. Those who believe traditional marriage is worth preserving and defending oppose changing that definition. But even as they oppose changing the current defintiion, most would support a new institution to accommodate all, straight and gay, who for whatever reason do not wish to marry or cannot marry but want to form themselves into legally recognized family groups.

I wish the debate was focused there.
 
The issue is about changing the definition of marriage to something different than it is. Those who believe traditional marriage is worth preserving and defending oppose changing that definition.

Who originally defined marriage?

Marriage goes all the way back to 2000BC. Christians were not the first to define marriage, and the first marriage was a union between two people in any close relationship (regardless of gender). Christianity just has one offshoot of marriage. Many definitions of marriage (including those older than Christianity) include(d) Gay Marriage, Polygamy (which was actually a large part of marriage in early Christianity till the medieval period), etc.

The whole notion of a definition for marriage is bogus. It has been defined many times, by many societies, and today holds different meanings in different parts of the world.
 
Last edited:
No it isn't about equality. You can't have more equality than 100% equality and currently the marriage laws in all 50 states are applied 100% equally across the board regardless of race, ethnicity, country of origin, gender, sexual orientation, political party, or socioeconomic circumstances.

That a law does not include every provision that we would like to have included is irrelevent. A 15-year-old may be a much better driver and more responsible than a 30-year-old, but when the law says that you must be 16 to receive a driver's license, the other facts are irrelevent.

Many 16 and 17 year olds are more mature and more ready for marriage than many 30 year olds too, but when the law says that you must be 18 or get parental consent to marry, it might seem unfair or even unreasonable, but it is not a matter of equality when the law is applied equally to everybody.

There is no right to drive at age 15, no right to marry before age 18, and no right to marry anybody you want or anybody you love. The law restricts your right to marry only if you are unmarried and of legal age, the other person is unmarried and of legal age, there is no close blood relationship, and the other person is of the opposite gender and consents to the marriage. There is no requirement for any kind of religious affiliation or ceremony--that is an extra layer added by some religions or personal preferences. There is no requirement that you be able to afford to get married or that you even like each other, much less love each other.

It would be great if each and every one of us could tailor whatever laws to fit what would best suit us, but that is not feasible and still have a workable social contract in a democratic republic.

The issue is about changing the definition of marriage to something different than it is. Those who believe traditional marriage is worth preserving and defending oppose changing that definition. But even as they oppose changing the current defintiion, most would support a new institution to accommodate all, straight and gay, who for whatever reason do not wish to marry or cannot marry but want to form themselves into legally recognized family groups.

I wish the debate was focused there.

my take is that any marriage outside of a church is nothing more than a civil union into which consenting adults enter. there is nothing sacred about a courthouse wedding. we don't NEED a new institition, we already have one that works just fine. marriage between a man and a woman is in no way threatened by marriage between people of the same sex.
 
No it isn't about equality. You can't have more equality than 100% equality and currently the marriage laws in all 50 states are applied 100% equally across the board regardless of race, ethnicity, country of origin, gender, sexual orientation, political party, or socioeconomic circumstances.

That a law does not include every provision that we would like to have included is irrelevent. A 15-year-old may be a much better driver and more responsible than a 30-year-old, but when the law says that you must be 16 to receive a driver's license, the other facts are irrelevent.

Many 16 and 17 year olds are more mature and more ready for marriage than many 30 year olds too, but when the law says that you must be 18 or get parental consent to marry, it might seem unfair or even unreasonable, but it is not a matter of equality when the law is applied equally to everybody.

There is no right to drive at age 15, no right to marry before age 18, and no right to marry anybody you want or anybody you love.

Except where it concerns those who have already been granted that right...a straight person gets to choose their life long partner, naming them to be the one person who is irreplaceable and who is granted, by law, the assumption of power of attorney over all property, decisions, etc. The heterosexual gets to denote the one person who he, by mutual bond of affection and requited love, has total faith and confidence in. Their bond is solidified under the law and makes all assumptions about the two as if the law were dealing with one entity.

So no, don't sit there and tell me that it is equal and that there isn't a right by straight people to marry the person of their choosing. Their choice of marriage partner is a natural and evident progression of the bonds they make as lifelong mates and that natural and evident progression is denied to the homosexual couple while snarky and smarmy detractors shrilly cry that homosexuals have the same rights because they, like you, are forced to marry the opposite sex? No, that's not even acceptable anymore and it only shows how the anti-gm crowd devalues the sanctity of marriage far more than anyone else.

That they would be more ok with two people marrying as long as they were of the opposite sex but without any of the other bonds that progress to the desire to marry to start with? It's that important that they deny the same progression to loving and bonded homosexuals while encouraging sham marriages between two individuals just wanting the paper...and all over making sure there's the right ratio of lady parts to gentleman parts?

That's just sick and very reflective of the fact that under the guidance and "protection" of heterosexuals, marriage has all but become a joke...a social event measured in importance by how big the party was. A fifty percent divorce rate, 24 hour publicity marriages, auctioning off 50 bachelors to one woman on national TV...this is what marriage has become on your watch. Time to pass the torch to some people who really want it and seem to know its significance enough to fight for it.
 
Last edited:
^^^I feel like standing and applauding.
 
Except where it concerns those who have already been granted that right...a straight person gets to choose their life long partner, naming them to be the one person who is irreplaceable and who is granted, by law, the assumption of power of attorney over all property, decisions, etc. The heterosexual gets to denote the one person who he, by mutual bond of affection and requited love, has total faith and confidence in. Their bond is solidified under the law and makes all assumptions about the two as if the law were dealing with one entity.

So no, don't sit there and tell me that it is equal and that there isn't a right by straight people to marry the person of their choosing. Their choice of marriage partner is a natural and evident progression of the bonds they make as lifelong mates and that natural and evident progression is denied to the homosexual couple while snarky and smarmy detractors shrilly cry that homosexuals have the same rights because they, like you, are forced to marry the opposite sex? No, that's not even acceptable anymore and it only shows how the anti-gm crowd devalues the sanctity of marriage far more than anyone else.

That they would be more ok with two people marrying as long as they were of the opposite sex but without any of the other bonds that progress to the desire to marry to start with? It's that important that they deny the same progression to loving and bonded homosexuals while encouraging sham marriages between two individuals just wanting the paper...and all over making sure there's the right ratio of lady parts to gentleman parts?

That's just sick and very reflective of the fact that under the guidance and "protection" of heterosexuals, marriage has all but become a joke...a social event measured in importance by how big the party was. A fifty percent divorce rate, 24 hour publicity marriages, auctioning off 50 bachelors to one woman on national TV...this is what marriage has become on your watch. Time to pass the torch to some people who really want it and seem to know its significance enough to fight for it.

I not only say that it is equal, but is one of the most equal and, until recently, one of the most fairly and equitably managed laws in the country.

It is not the heterosexual's fault or decree that somebody else is gay no matter how lovable, intelligent, capable, desirable, etc. etc. etc. that gay person is any more than it is the heterosexual's fault that another heterosexual cannot find somebody to marry or doesn't want to. Equality of the law cannot reasonably guarantee equality of outcome nor address everybody's wants and desires. Long ago, elected leaders determined that the traditional family was good for children and communities and resulted in greater prosperity, more stability, lessened crime rates, increased property values, and a solid tax base for government. Everybody, straight and gay alike, benefitted from that and it was determined to be in the interest of government to accommodate and promote the traditional family.

Okay, we now have a lot of people, both gay and straight, who are outside the traditional family and want the benefits of marriage without having to meet the requirements of the law in order to have that. Many of us are more than willing, even anxious to work out some way to develop a new, legal, and recognized institution that would accommodate those who for whaever reason cannot or do not wish to marry as marriage is defined. There is no reason the new institution cannot be just as beautiful, meaningful, practical, beneficial, and, in time, as socially acceptable as marriage has traditionally been.

It is not a matter of equality. It already is equal as everybody without exception is bound by the same laws. The 'separate but equal' mantra isn't even a factor because the new institution would not be marriage but would be something new, different, and necessary to meet the needs of those who cannot or do not wish to marry under the current definition of marriage.
 
I not only say that it is equal, but is one of the most equal and, until recently, one of the most fairly and equitably managed laws in the country.

It is not the heterosexual's fault or decree that somebody else is gay no matter how lovable, intelligent, capable, desirable, etc. etc. etc. that gay person is any more than it is the heterosexual's fault that another heterosexual cannot find somebody to marry or doesn't want to. Equality of the law cannot reasonably guarantee equality of outcome nor address everybody's wants and desires. Long ago, elected leaders determined that the traditional family was good for children and communities and resulted in greater prosperity, more stability, lessened crime rates, increased property values, and a solid tax base for government. Everybody, straight and gay alike, benefitted from that and it was determined to be in the interest of government to accommodate and promote the traditional family.

Okay, we now have a lot of people, both gay and straight, who are outside the traditional family and want the benefits of marriage without having to meet the requirements of the law in order to have that. Many of us are more than willing, even anxious to work out some way to develop a new, legal, and recognized institution that would accommodate those who for whaever reason cannot or do not wish to marry as marriage is defined. There is no reason the new institution cannot be just as beautiful, meaningful, practical, beneficial, and, in time, as socially acceptable as marriage has traditionally been.

It is not a matter of equality. It already is equal as everybody without exception is bound by the same laws. The 'separate but equal' mantra isn't even a factor because the new institution would not be marriage but would be something new, different, and necessary to meet the needs of those who cannot or do not wish to marry under the current definition of marriage.

I think you and I are talking past one another. The core rationale behind marriage in our society is that it is a progression of a relationship and an expression of commitment that is given consideration and deference by the State.

It is wholly unfair and unequitable to permit the State to legitimize and enshrine those personal commitments based on moral approval or disapproval. There is no legitimate requirement of marriage that two gay people can't fulfill for each other that two straight people can fulfill. There is no active compelling state interest in making sure lady parts are in a 1:1 ratio to gentleman parts.

It is NOT equitable for a heterosexual to have a right to name a mutually feeling partner as their one, irreplaceable person in all things legal and to not give the homosexual that same right. It is snarky, obtuse, and smarmy to sit there and say that it's equal when you know damned well that the homosexual is being denied the same liberty and comfort of placing all legal confidence in his "irreplaceable".

Marriage is not, and has not been for a long time, about social class, conformity, or child bearing. It is about legal recognition, protection, and convenience in sharing one's life with a partner and mate. To claim that it is equal for the heterosexual to have that with a person they are naturally compatible with while a homosexual must choose an incompatible partner to place such confidence in is beyond dishonest.
 
Okay, we now have a lot of people, both gay and straight, who are outside the traditional family and want the benefits of marriage without having to meet the requirements of the law in order to have that. Many of us are more than willing, even anxious to work out some way to develop a new, legal, and recognized institution that would accommodate those who for whaever reason cannot or do not wish to marry as marriage is defined. There is no reason the new institution cannot be just as beautiful, meaningful, practical, beneficial, and, in time, as socially acceptable as marriage has traditionally been..

I'm gonna go back and say though...if the issue were approached with more honesty, this would be a suitable compromise. But we saw in California that an expectation of honesty from the anti-gm side is akin to foolish naivete. There is no room for compromise after what happened here.
 
I'm gonna go back and say though...if the issue were approached with more honesty, this would be a suitable compromise. But we saw in California that an expectation of honesty from the anti-gm side is akin to foolish naivete. There is no room for compromise after what happened here.

That's what happens when people talk past each other instead of to each other I think. :) I think those who saw a liberal court and a militant activist gay community overturning the law as well as the will of the people saw an issue thrown in their face with no compromise of any kind offered so that everybody might get something of what they thought important. They saw it as the gay activists way or no way, an extremist position, and so they joined the extremists on the other side rather than lose what they saw as everything. Each side saw the other as intractable, uncompromising, unreasonable, and determined to have its own way at whatever cost to the other. And neither side could see how angry and hateful their own tactics appeared to the other. Or they didn't care.

The state has never interpreted marriage as a benefit to the adults involved in this country, but everything written into the marriage laws was to protect and benefit the children. The adults benefitting was an incidental happening. However, as previously stated, the state recognized the benefit to the whole community when traditional marriages consistently, with very few exceptions, produced more stable, more prosperous, more peaceful, and more aesthetically desirable communities than generally developed elsewhere where traditional families were not the norm.

Again it is not a matter of equality. The marriage laws are equally applied without prejudice to every man, woman, and child. It is a matter of practicality.

It isn't too late however for both heterosexual and homosexual people to muzzle or marginalize their extremists and come up with solutions that meet the needs of all parties concerned.
 
And what do you think married couples do now? So I guess you are against marriage then right? Because married couples now take from the government as well.

Duh. YES!!! I am against marriage gaining monetary benefits for doing something they would do anyway.. Totally consistent.
 
of course it's about equality.

I disagree. If it was about equality then opposing viewpoints would be equally accepted.


It is about forcing others to validating your lifestyle. I have never understood people wanting to be validated/acknowledged by people they dont even know or care to know.
 
Claiming gays have the same rights as heterosexuals because they have the same freedom to marry a member of the opposite sex is the same as saying blacks only allowed to marry blacks have the same rights as whites only allowed to marry whites because they all have the same freedom to marry someone of their same race. While technically true, it's not equity at all.
 
Claiming gays have the same rights as heterosexuals because they have the same freedom to marry a member of the opposite sex is the same as saying blacks only allowed to marry blacks have the same rights as whites only allowed to marry whites because they all have the same freedom to marry someone of their same race. While technically true, it's not equity at all.

It's equal but its not freedom.
 
Back
Top Bottom