• 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!

How will gay marriage affect your marriage?

How will gay marriage affect your marriage?

  • It wont

    Votes: 36 85.7%
  • It'll make me want to divorce my partner

    Votes: 6 14.3%

  • Total voters
    42
Yet they can't marry... Which makes them unequal to heterosexual couples. Go figure.

Oh come on, you know she's going to say "sure they can, they just can't marry who they want to marry!"

Yes, it is that stupid, but it's something she keeps spouting. :roll:
 
not even one of the most liberal and progressive states out of fifty?

Wait a minute. Since I live in California, I'd like to weigh in here. First, I'm ashamed that my fellow voters fell for the hurricane of expensive fear-mongering that was the pro-prop 8 propaganda machine. Pro-8 forces repeatedly warned that if prop 8 failed, teachers would be forced to incorporate lessons on the homosexual lifestyle... even in kindergarten!

Blatantly false, every damned word. Unfortunately, there apparently aren't any laws about lying in election ads. THAT's why the damned proposition won, because people were confused and horrified that their 5 year olds would be indoctrinated into a homosexual lifestyle if they didn't vote yes on this horrible amendment.

There's a reason the USA is a democratic republic and not a pure democracy. It's so that individual states cannot legislate away fundamental, constitutional rights of anyone, including minorities. In my view, this is exactly what we have done here in California... legislated away basic, constitutionally protected rights. Unfortunately, until the SCOTUS actually rules that homosexuals are people too, they will continue to be the last group to be legally subjected to institutional discrimination.

It's a travesty. And as far as I'm concerned, it's a crime.
 
Race isn't a choice but intraracial or interracial marriage IS.

If you were to define marriage between two people of the same color, you'd still follow your logic of equallity, since ALL people can marry someone of the same skin...EQUALLY. Right?

Your confounding the relationship choice with the actual condition of the parties. Homosexual marriage is a 'choice' but gender is not. Interracial marriage is a choice but race is not. Do you see the connection?

Race is to Gender as interracial marriage is to homosexual marriage.

You are correct about the bolded part except it's not my logic of equality. I am just stating the literal reading of the law. If you look at history, the laws weren't written as you say.
In the Loving case, the law stated that white people could not marry other races. A specific group is denied equal protection of the law. White people.
The government has gotten smarter and has written the law to apply to everyone in the state. In order to have a violation of the 14th amendment (that was used in the Loving case) the law must apply to some and not others. Prop 8 applies to everyone equally. No individual may marry more than one person. No individual may marry someone of the same sex. No one is excluded from the law so as such no one receive privileges denied to others.
 
No one is excluded from the law so as such no one receive privileges denied to others.

Yes, men are being excluded from marrying men, yet woman are not. That's descrimination being applied to only one group. And before you mention lesbians, that's not the same aspect.

Woman cannot marry women, but men can. Additional descrimination, not 'negating' descrimination.

And let's not look at history, let's look at a hypothetical. What if there was a prop. akin to prop8 that banned all interracial marriage (not just in one race). Now it's being applied to everyone equally. This is justified?
 
Last edited:
Who is Loving?

......is this a serious question?

If it is, then I would be happy to explain my understanding of the ruling and how it is used to argue in favor of gay marriage.

If it's not, then STFU ;)
 
Last edited:
Yes, men are being excluded from marrying men, yet woman are not. That's descrimination being applied to only one group. And before you mention lesbians, that's not the same aspect.

Woman cannot marry women, but men can. Additional descrimination, not 'negating' descrimination.

And let's not look at history, let's look at a hypothetical. What if there was a prop. akin to prop8 that banned all interracial marriage (not just in one race). Now it's being applied to everyone equally. This is justified?

Take a random woman for example.

A non-related man can marry her, while a related man cannot.

The only reason why the second man denied his basic human right to marry is due to familial relation.

As familial relation is a federally protected class*, a ban against incest is discrimination.

Therefore, if one oppose discrimination absolutely, one necessarily supports familial marriage.

I oppose familial marriage; therefore I am open to discriminating against federally protected classes.

Since I am open to discriminating against federally protected classes, merely claiming that a gay marriage ban is discrimination means nothing to me.




*Protected class - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Last edited:
Like Transexuality and Gender Identity Disorder, born-homosexuality is a biological error. Race is not. Therefore gay marriage and interracial marriage are not comparable even if gays ever did suffer though anything even remotely close to Black slavery.

Gay marriage = interracial marriage is fantastic hyperbole at best.

Prove that if one is born homosexual it is a biological error,
 
1 of the 2 core purposes of marriage is to promote procreation if healthy children. Gays, hemophiliacs and familial couples cannot do this.

This not completely accurate. The purpose of marriage, from a governmental standpoint, is to promote the healthy rearing of children. Procreation is not a necessity to this.
 
My soon to be step son would disagree with you.

My father, stepmother and 2 sisters would disagree with your soon to be step son.

And what this proves is what I often say: absolutes tend to fail. There are plenty of those whose step-parents reared them better than their biological parents would have; the converse is, also, true in many circumstances.
 
As our founding fathers feared, we are too stupid to self govern, and this democracy is leading back into slavery as all democracies have.

I agree completely with this, but am often accused of being a fascist when I say it. John Adams was of this mindset. He felt that the common man was far to stupid to govern. I have yet to see him proven incorrect.
 
Gosh I have divorced and married 6 times. Was it all because I met that gay lady in paris in 1965.

I was told that it was because of a gay man, that WW2 started in 1939.

I was once accosted verbally by a gay man, but I was more interested in his wife to care what he wanted. She was a Hot Fox.

my goal has always been to live with 5 lovely beautiful rich ladies, and have them support me in a great fashion.
We Americans have a modern history of Divorce and marriage break down. what has this to do with gaye marriage? Heck most of the people that I meet at the Senior Center, have been married and divorced several times. They have children by more than one spouce.

So please explain to me what this has to do with Gays getting married.
 
I agree completely with this, but am often accused of being a fascist when I say it. John Adams was of this mindset. He felt that the common man was far to stupid to govern. I have yet to see him proven incorrect.

the common man doesn't govern, we have a representative democracy
 
This is a different question.

You originally asked why it happened, and to that I have no conclusive answer.

As to why I think born-homosexuality is a biological error:

Jerry, I read the study you posted. I discusses biological DIFFERENCES, not errors. This is a significant semantical variation.

If we were to look at gay marriage in a vacuum, I wouldn't really care about it.

It doesn't exist in a vacuum, though, and the modern pro-gm argument removes the procreation of healthy children from the purpose of marriage, and it is this which harms the sociological institution of marriage.
Procreation is not a necessity to good parenting. Two-parent households of any gender combination promote children of equivalent health and functioning level.



The government's vested interest in marriage is promoting couples raising children.
Yup.

Any couple not raising children is of no concern to the state.

This rules out the majority of gay couples.

Of the gay and strate couples raising children, the state has a vested interest in the health and safety of those children. This means the state has no interest, in fact has grounds to oppose, familial unions and second marriages with small children. Reasonable opposition to the step-parent dynamic rules out the majority of gay couples with pre-existing children.
In bold is where you veer off course. The state has a vested interest in supporting couples raising children. Biological, step and other non biological couples raising children fulfill this, as these children, overall, function on the same level, and, overall, do better than children raised in single parent or other non-two parent familial situations. Gay couples raising children, produce kids that are as healthy as those from straights. So, in this part of the argument, promoting gay unions is in the government's interest.
 
Prove that if one is born homosexual it is a biological error,

I've already given a sample of supporting evidence in post 192, and while I may be willing to give additional examples, I have no interest in trying to conclusively prove beyond a reasonable doubt my position in this light weight thread.

This not completely accurate. The purpose of marriage, from a governmental standpoint, is to promote the healthy rearing of children. Procreation is not a necessity to this.

Here it seems you are trying to further compartmentalize the various functions of marriage. Both Loving and Skinner refer to marriage as critical to human survival, and in context they were not merely referring to children being raised, but consieved in marriage.

It is a package deal.

Jerry, I read the study you posted. I discusses biological DIFFERENCES, not errors. This is a significant semantical variation.

I never claimed that the study identified errors.

I said that I interpreted the differences illustrated in the study as errors, ie; my opinion.

I hope you can see the difference there.



Procreation is not a necessity to good parenting. Two-parent households of any gender combination promote children of equivalent health and functioning level.

This does not address any point of my argument.


In bold is where you veer off course. The state has a vested interest in supporting couples raising children. Biological, step and other non biological couples raising children fulfill this, as these children, overall, function on the same level, and, overall, do better than children raised in single parent or other non-two parent familial situations. Gay couples raising children, produce kids that are as healthy as those from straights. So, in this part of the argument, promoting gay unions is in the government's interest.

The typical child raised by gays being equal too children coming from the 50%+ dysfunctional hetero homes is hardly a convincing argument, even if simply raising children were the only element composing a marriage, since the 50%+ dysfunctional homes are another problem. All your saying here is that gay marriage would perpetuate existing dysfunctions. Your point here is at best benign.

As I said, which you chose to ignore before and will thus likely choose to ignore again here: raising children is a part of the deal, only a part, and does not-in-and-of-itself justify allowing a given marriage lest we also allow incest and polygamy.

***
This entire exchange miss-assumes that the gay marriage movement is based on what is best for children and families.

This is of course not the case, as the pro-gm argument is about legitimizing the gay identity in the public eye. Sex and sexuality is the priority issue, financial benefits second. Children and family take a very distant 3rd place when they're even considered at all.

If the main pro-gm argument were about children and families first, with all else barely mentioned and considered incidental, I would be far more likely to support gay marriage.
 
Last edited:
I've already given a sample of supporting evidence in post 192, and while I may be willing to give additional examples, I have no interest in trying to conclusively prove beyond a reasonable doubt my position in this light weight thread.

Translation: Foot entered mouth and now I'm choking on it.
 
Gay marriages will cause the very fabric of reality to unravel.

Oh.. yeah and all that other stuff people say.
 
Jeffersonian rhetoric was despise by many of the FF's like Madison, John Adams, Hamilton, Jay et all. There were men who did not believe men were equal.

Yet look what made it into the documents. :doh
 
This not completely accurate. The purpose of marriage, from a governmental standpoint, is to promote the healthy rearing of children. Procreation is not a necessity to this.

If that were true, then all partners who have no children would be denied marriage licenses.

Try again.
 
If that were true, then all partners who have no children would be denied marriage licenses.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've always been taught that societal expectation is to get married first and then to have children-- and in any case, even a couple of demonstrable infertility has the capacity to adopt children.

Notably, however, adoption agencies consider the issue of whether or not the prospective are parents are already married in making any determinations of their suitability to raise a child.
 
Back
Top Bottom