• 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 Would You Be Harmed By Society's Acceptance of Same Sex Marriage?

How Will You Personally Harmed By Same-Sex Marriages in Society?

  • My spouse will leave me.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • I'll have come up with a reason to say "no".

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • My son's special friend would be my son-in-law.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • I could never again rent a honeymoon suite in a hotel.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • I won't be, I'm not getting married.

    Votes: 3 16.7%

  • I won't be, I'm already married to the opposite sex.

    Votes: 3 16.7%

  • Other.

    Votes: 12 66.7%
  • Total voters
    18
Goshin said:
When you start being as consistent as you want me to be, we'll talk about it.

That ain't tonite, for sure.

G.
Click to expand...

In terms of personal liberties, I am quite consistent.
 
American said:
With a 50% divorce rate, why do gays want to get married?
Click to expand...

Well it is an institution that has the hooks of the straight community into it. Can gays and lesbians do a better job. We have yet to find out. I only wish that they respected the institution more.
 
Goshin said:
A mock poll, intended to mock people... I probably shouldn't bother to reply, but hope of intelligent debate springs eternal, so...

Here's what I posted on this subject in another thread:
Click to expand...

So, you won't be hurt personally, yet you want to deny freedom to a minority based on your fear of what might happen if their chains were removed.

Okay. We can all understand that.
 
other - social security will become insolvent even sooner and the case of marital fraud cases will rise causing an even less efficient government structure then what we have today.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Pick as many as you like, add your own, if you want.

I really really want those opposed to same sex marriage to participate in this one.

Oops. Forgot to add "I won't be, none of my business". So I vote "other".
Click to expand...

Communist Goals - 1963 Congressional Record

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch."

But in all seriousness, I don't know how my big toe would be harmed if my arm were broken; however I guess you would have to look at sociaty as a whole to get that.
 
Other

It won't harm me, I don't care, get off my lawn!
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Pick as many as you like, add your own, if you want.

I really really want those opposed to same sex marriage to participate in this one.

Oops. Forgot to add "I won't be, none of my business". So I vote "other".
Click to expand...

We don't know what the effects on society will be in several generations.

After all we didn't know that welfare would break up the Black family and lead to our current Thug Life in the Black community when it was first inaugurated but everyone saw it was a good thing in the short term.
 
bhkad said:
We don't know what the effects on society will be in several generations.

After all we didn't know that welfare would break up the Black family and lead to our current Thug Life in the Black community when it was first inaugurated but everyone saw it was a good thing in the short term.
Click to expand...

We (those of my political ideology) most certainly did know this. We also knew that the civil rights legislation of the 60's would inevitably lead to quotas.
 
bhkad said:
After all we didn't know that welfare would break up the Black family and lead to our current Thug Life in the Black community when it was first inaugurated but everyone saw it was a good thing in the short term.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that totally wasn't the sharp move from free market to corporate (i.e. fascist) capitalism. The vast restriction on social mobility in the system and the rules set up to keep the rich rich and the poor poor. Totally welfare's fault in total.
 
bhkad said:
We don't know what the effects on society will be in several generations.

After all we didn't know that welfare would break up the Black family and lead to our current Thug Life in the Black community when it was first inaugurated but everyone saw it was a good thing in the short term.
Click to expand...

Who's "we"?

Who's "everyone"?

Sensible people opposed being robbed to provide welfare, for strictly obvious and current reasons.

And guess what? If you can't come up with an objection based on current society, and you just admitted you can't, you have no reason to assume it will be harmful to future generations.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
So, you won't be hurt personally, yet you want to deny freedom to a minority based on your fear of what might happen if their chains were removed.

Okay. We can all understand that.
Click to expand...

Even though we agree more often than not, Scarecrow, I've seen how you treat people in debates. I'd sooner debate a pit-bull on who that bone by his doghouse belonged to. Not because you're such a superior debater, but because you chew people up and make it personal, you never acknowlege a point someone else makes, and you drag it on forever without end.

Not intrested, thanks. You can misconstrue what I said, that is that gays are somehow "in chains" because they don't have a right to an institution that has historically been man-woman-children in almost every culture and time on the planet, if you want. I'm not engaging you in debate in this thread; you're salivating at the thought of ripping into someone with personal attacks over this issue and I'm not intrested in being your T-bone.

Bye.

G.
 
Ethereal said:
I'd have to confer pecuniary and social benefits upon yet another group of people. How's that?
Click to expand...

You'll have to pay them if they get married?

Shouldn't that then be the issue, not the fact that some people are wrongly denied the freedom to marry who they wish?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
You'll have to pay them if they get married?
Click to expand...

Indirectly. The institution of state-sanctioned marriage confers numerous social and financial benefits upon its participants not afforded to others.

Shouldn't that then be the issue, not the fact that some people are wrongly denied the freedom to marry who they wish?
Click to expand...

I do not see a state-sanctioned marriage as being a right; the entire institution should be abolished.
 
Cilogy said:
Why does anyone want to get married?
Click to expand...

For me, marriage was the most awesome and amazing event to have ever occurred in my 37 years.

It's bound me to another person in a way I've never experienced with anyone in my life. Not even close, actually.

I can tell her anything, and I trust her with all my dirty little secrets. She's always there for me, something not even my family can claim.

Marriage rocks, imo :)

(before someone says it, I've been married almost 4 years)

Voted other. I disagree with it personally, but have no business dictating that to others.
 
Last edited:
Analyst said:
For me, marriage was the most awesome and amazing event to have ever occurred in my 37 years.

It's bound me to another person in a way I've never experienced with anyone in my life. Not even close, actually.

I can tell her anything, and I trust her with all my dirty little secrets. She's always there for me, something not even my family can claim.

Marriage rocks, imo :)

(before someone says it, I've been married almost 4 years)
Click to expand...

everything you describe can be had without a state issued marriage certificate.
 
ARealConservative said:
everything you describe can be had without a state issued marriage certificate.
Click to expand...

It sure can. For me, it's the level of commitment that matters, not the slip of paper. Just wanted to get my response in to the anti-marriage crowd...they truly don't know what they are missing, though my wife and I don't support the insipid Americanized view of the marriage you see in every stupid-ass commercial (you know, husband is an idiot/incompetent/loser, wife and kids know everything, wife is super-woman/super-hot, blah blah blah).

I'd have gotten married whether the government sanctioned it or not.
 
Last edited:
Analyst said:
It sure can. For me, it's the level of commitment that matters, not the slip of paper.

I'd have gotten married whether the government sanctioned it or not.
Click to expand...

Precisely! It should be a social institution, not a governmental one. If people wish to make their relationship contractual they should be free to do so, but do not presume to incur social and financial benefits because of it or receive positive recognition of your lifestyle choice.
 
Ethereal said:
Indirectly. The institution of state-sanctioned marriage confers numerous social and financial benefits upon its participants not afforded to others.
Click to expand...

Then shouldn't the issue be the unequal treatment by the state of marrieds vs unmarrieds?

Ethereal said:
I do not see a state-sanctioned marriage as being a right; the entire institution should be abolished.
Click to expand...

The function of marriage in a state is to legally record a contract and establish a baseline for inheritances and other property matters. Since the happy couple are accepting legally binding responsibilities and duties towards each other, it's necessary for a formal record of the event to be taken.

That's all a marriage is, in a secular society. The religious trappings are, of course, completely irrelevant, and not part of this discussion. If churches don't want to marry people, fine.
 
Ethereal said:
Precisely! It should be a social institution, not a governmental one. If people wish to make their relationship contractual they should be free to do so, but do not presume to incur social and financial benefits because of it or receive positive recognition of your lifestyle choice.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I have a hard time understanding this.

I'm not here to bar anyone from making a commitment to someone they love, regardless of orientation.

The incentive that government gives married couples is completely unnecessary, and I'd still be married if it didn't exist. In fact, I didn't even know their extent until after I was married.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Then shouldn't the issue be the unequal treatment by the state of marrieds vs unmarrieds?
Click to expand...

Certainly. That's always been my contention.

The function of marriage in a state is to legally record a contract and establish a baseline for inheritances and other property matters. Since the happy couple are accepting legally binding responsibilities and duties towards each other, it's necessary for a formal record of the event to be taken.

That's all a marriage is, in a secular society. The religious trappings are, of course, completely irrelevant, and not part of this discussion. If churches don't want to marry people, fine.
Click to expand...

All of this can be accomplished with civil unions. I see a state-sanctioned marriage in the same light as a minority housing grant. It is a discriminatory governmental institution that confers benefits upon a specific group of people, hence any arguments which reference the equal protection clause must, of necessity, recognize this contradiction. If I cannot receive a housing grant from the government because I'm not black, then it makes no sense to cry afoul fo the Constitution when people who do fit the definition of marriage are denied access to it.
 
Ethereal said:
Certainly. That's always been my contention.



All of this can be accomplished with civil unions. I see a state-sanctioned marriage in the same light as a minority housing grant. It is a discriminatory governmental institution that confers benefits upon a specific group of people, hence any arguments which reference the equal protection clause must, of necessity, recognize this contradiction. If I cannot receive a housing grant from the government because I'm not black, then it makes no sense to cry afoul fo the Constitution when people who do fit the definition of marriage are denied access to it.
Click to expand...

I agree that the state should stop sanctioning marriage.

However, since straight marriages are accepted by the state, it also seems discriminatory to deny them to homosexual couples.
 
If the state stops sanctioning marriage entirely then you have an entire host of legal and practical problems that arise.

First off, we live in a global society. If you want to adopt abroad, most nations require legal marriage recognition. If you own property abroad with your spouse, most other nation's property and tax laws are based around legal recognition of marriages.

Secondly, you have the entire issue of joint property ownership and custody. You also have the problems of speaking for your spouse in the event they are incapacitated. Sure, one can work around some of that by entering into private legal agreements, but it could make for extremely complicated legal arrangements in many families.

Also, marriage is not necessarily a religious institution. Many couples get married by the justice of the peace.

Finally, its juvenile that some people would want to do away with legal marriage recognition simply because a group they don't agree with would get that recognition. Moreover, its never going to happen anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom