• 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
Unrein said:
Then why can atheists get married?
Click to expand...

They go to a JotP or have a friend get "ordained" for $5.95 off the internet, not a church.
 
earthworm said:
We have become civilized, more or less, most of us...
Marriage is but a religious institution, with the state making it official. As such, the homosexuals will have to pipe down or do something different (state unions ?)
Click to expand...

The "slippery slope" is what I have a problem with, and I think it's a big problem. Those who demand gay marriage need to explain why marriage would not be appropriate for other sexual pattern adults who would wish to enter into them. If gay marriage is to be allowed why not polygamy, incest, and you know the rest. I feel this is a legitimate question, so don't jump me for it. :mrgreen:
 
rsixing said:
They go to a JotP or have a friend get "ordained" for $5.95 off the internet, not a church.
Click to expand...

I'm an atheist who got married in a church. It was also a historical site. :mrgreen:
 
Marilyn Monroe said:
The "slippery slope" is what I have a problem with, and I think it's a big problem. Those who demand gay marriage need to explain why marriage would not be appropriate for other sexual pattern adults who would wish to enter into them. If gay marriage is to be allowed why not polygamy, incest, and you know the rest. I feel this is a legitimate question, so don't jump me for it. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

They used this fallacy against interracial marriage.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
They used this fallacy against interracial marriage.
Click to expand...

Ooh, and they were right, because look: now gays wanna get married too. What's next, poor people wanting to get married? The infertile wanting to get married? Jeez, where do we draw the line??

;)
 
1069 said:
Ooh, and they were right, because look: now gays wanna get married too. What's next, poor people wanting to get married? The infertile wanting to get married? Jeez, where do we draw the line??

;)
Click to expand...

I draw it at left handed people. They are trying to take over the world. They must be stopped.

Left-handed United States Presidents
 
Marilyn Monroe said:
The "slippery slope" is what I have a problem with, and I think it's a big problem. Those who demand gay marriage need to explain why marriage would not be appropriate for other sexual pattern adults who would wish to enter into them. If gay marriage is to be allowed why not polygamy, incest, and you know the rest. I feel this is a legitimate question, so don't jump me for it. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

I think that in order to exclude any group from access to the benefits of marriage you should have to show why that group should be excluded. The why should have to include evidence and/or sound reasoning for how extending access to marriage to group X will harm society.

It is only to this extent that there is any slippery slope at all: That each group you bring up may attempt to gain marriage rights on the same terms, and society will have to think through those decisions with reason and not emotion or appeals to religion.

And, it may be that society will be unable to find any rational basis for excluding those groups from marriage. If that is the case, they shouldn't be excluded. However, just because no rational basis can be found to deny gay people marriage doesn't mean there isn't a rational basis to deny siblings a marriage to one another.

The only argument that has been put forward with any claim to rationality is: "Gay marriage will harm the institution of marriage". However, this argument has failed due to a lack of the ability for anyone to come up with a scenario as to how this will occur, or what the consequences will be to society or individuals within the society when the 'institution is harmed'. There has been plenty of time to develop the reasoning, and still no successful argument.

Just appeals to emotion... and those will continue to work for a short while longer.
 
1069 said:
It's rare for females.
Approximately 10% of males are left-handed. Only 1% of females are.
Click to expand...

I didn't know that. I know a lefty female. She's like a four leaf clover. :mrgreen:
 
1069 said:
Me, too.
Jerry, too.
Don't know about anybody else on the forum.
Click to expand...

I am too, theoretically anyhow, although over the years I've learned how to be largely ambidextrous.
 
Cephus said:
I am too, theoretically anyhow, although over the years I've learned how to be largely ambidextrous.
Click to expand...

It's not really a good thing.
It's pretty well accepted within the scientific community that lefties have shorter median lifespans, and higher rates of almost every disease. It's not well-understood why yet, but the theory is that being left handed is a mutation, a microscopic aberration of the brain or nervous system which has not yet been pinpointed, and that it generally signals that other aberrations and irregularities exist within the body, in other organs and systems.
In other words, it's pathological. It's a syndrome. Left-handedness is a symptom of it.

Not to- haha- scare you or anything.

The seminal study of this phenomenon was published in 1991, by Drs. Stanley Coren and Diane Halpern, and it asserted that lefties die an average of nine years earlier than righties, mostly of cancer and cerebrovascular incidents such as strokes.
It has since been challenged, to some extent; a lot of scientists think more study- with larger control groups- is needed.
But it is fairly well-accepted.

Sucks to be us, eh?
I was always kind of proud of being a lefty, until I learned this bad news. :-(

Oh well, I'll quit derailing the thread.
 
1069 said:
Me, too.
Jerry, too.
Don't know about anybody else on the forum.
Click to expand...

I am as is my daughter and my girlfriend and her grandson.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
They used this fallacy against interracial marriage.
Click to expand...

They said interracial marriage would lead to men marrying men, and we know that that would never happen. I mean the very notion that Loving could be twisted into supporting something as outlandish as 2 men or 2 women marrying...it's absurd! The idea that interracial marriage could in any way open the door to same-sex marriage is a textbook Slippery-Slope indeed.








Oh wait, that's actually happening now, never mind.
 
Jerry said:
They said interracial marriage would lead to men marrying men, and we know that that would never happen. I mean the very notion that Loving could be twisted into supporting something as outlandish as 2 men or 2 women marrying...it's absurd! The idea that interracial marriage could in any way open the door to same-sex marriage is a textbook Slippery-Slope indeed.








Oh wait, that's actually happening now, never mind.
Click to expand...

Oh, really? Who "said" that?
I think what they said was that interracial marriage would lead to blacks getting uppity and above their station, and would lead to more biracial children and to the degradation of the white race.

And look, it's all happened. And it's good. :mrgreen:

I'll bet even the most pessimistic of them never imagined that in 40 scant years, a biracial man would be the President of the United States.
I hope they're flailing in helpless horror in their wheelchairs right now, or else spinning in their graves.
 
1069 said:
It's rare for females.
Approximately 10% of males are left-handed. Only 1% of females are.
Click to expand...

This is completely off topic here, but that comment interests me. I work at Macca's, and we have about 100 employees, and at least 25 of them are left handed - most females. What are the odds of that?:shock:
 
Cristina said:
This is completely off topic here, but that comment interests me. I work at Macca's, and we have about 100 employees, and at least 25 of them are left handed - most females. What are the odds of that?:shock:
Click to expand...

Not good odds, I wouldn't think.
But... well, there are some (not very scientific, I'm afraid) theories about lefties being more "creative" and "artsy" and "intuitive" and things like that.
What is "Macca's", exactly? I'm not familiar with it.
Maybe if it has something to do with art, that would explain the high concentration of lefties.

I must say, anecdotally, that my experiences parallel yours. it seems that half the people I know, male and female, are left-handed.
But that's not what the research says.
I live in a very liberal city; I thought maybe that had something to do with the enormously high concentration of lefties here.

Also, I've read that the percentage of the population that is left-handed is increasing (I don't know by how much). There are more young left-handed people than old left-handed people.
This could be explained a number of ways:
1. in the past, even up to the 1950s, children were systematically broken of lefthandedness at home and especially in school, because it was considered inferior and wrong, and so many older people who started out life lefthanded may have been forced to switch to righthandedness.

and 2. Our lives today might simply demand more ambidextrousness than people's lives did in former times. We drive, we operate machinery, we type, we do things that require small motor skill in both of our hands, not just our dominant one.

So people might actually be evolving more toward ambidextrousness and being able to write with both hands. Most people who can write with their left hand consider themselves left-handed, even if they can write equally well with their right hand.
My husband is one of these. he swears up and down he's left-handed, but he can actually write just as well with either hand, and tends to lead with his right in other pursuits.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
They said interracial marriage would lead to men marrying men, and we know that that would never happen. I mean the very notion that Loving could be twisted into supporting something as outlandish as 2 men or 2 women marrying...it's absurd! The idea that interracial marriage could in any way open the door to same-sex marriage is a textbook Slippery-Slope indeed.








Oh wait, that's actually happening now, never mind.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see some kind of source that says that this was one of the arguments used against interracial marriage.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
They used this fallacy against interracial marriage.
Click to expand...

But.. you aren't really commenting on what I asked. I was wanting to see what some think will happen to the polygamists, incest, that sort of thing. Why will they not want in the door as well, and why would it be right/wrong to let them in.
 
Marilyn Monroe said:
But.. you aren't really commenting on what I asked. I was wanting to see what some think will happen to the polygamists, incest, that sort of thing. Why will they not want in the door as well, and why would it be right/wrong to let them in.
Click to expand...

I don't have an issue with Polygamy. Polygamists can marry as many people as they want. And if the Incest is consentual betwen adults, they can do it without being married. It's a non-sequitor argument. If someone doesn't think the government should be involved in marriage, it's a universal belief.

I don't care if 27 cousins marry each other. Why should I care?
 
Since gays are not hetro why do they insist on adopting the word "marriage"? Why not make up a name for their unity and stay with it?
 
rhinefire said:
Since gays are not hetro why do they insist on adopting the word "marriage"? Why not make up a name for their unity and stay with it?
Click to expand...

Because we already have a perfectly good word for it, what's the point in making up another one. We've had enough "separate but equal" nonsense in this country already. Further, even for those who have no problem with "civil unions", the religious asshats are out to deny them equal rights no matter what names you put on it, so it's really irrelevant.
 
Marilyn Monroe said:
But.. you aren't really commenting on what I asked. I was wanting to see what some think will happen to the polygamists, incest, that sort of thing. Why will they not want in the door as well, and why would it be right/wrong to let them in.
Click to expand...

Quite frankly, because society sees those people as freaks. They don't have the support. Jerry Springer isn't enough support.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom