• 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!

Would you vote to legal same gender marriages?

Would you vote to legalize same gender marriages?

  • Yes, I would vote to make gay marriage legal

    Votes: 79 69.9%

  • No, I would vote against making gay marriage legal

    Votes: 28 24.8%

  • I am undecided and wouldn't vote

    Votes: 6 5.3%
  • Total voters
    113
CaptainCourtesy said:
No one is arguing that marriage is necessary for procreation and/or that marriage is FOR procreation. You need to re-read the position stated. That isn't it.
Click to expand...

Then some one needs to clearly state the position. Arguing with Jerry on this is arguing against a constantly moving goalpost, because there is no clear position. What exactly is the position, so some one can actually follow and if necessary argue against it?
 
Redress said:
Then some one needs to clearly state the position. Arguing with Jerry on this is arguing against a constantly moving goalpost, because there is no clear position. What exactly is the position, so some one can actually follow and if necessary argue against it?
Click to expand...

You only had to read the first page:

Jerry said:
There are 3 options, though, as reflected in your poll, as you can simply choose not to vote on the issue.

When the issue came before SD voters, I left that section blank.

If I had to vote again, I don't know...I guess that would depend on how many more pro-gm folks told me they didn't care about the family or how I voted, and how many pro-gm started making the issue about the family.

If gay-marriage is about raising children, then I'm for it.

If gay-marriage is about individual 'rights', then I oppose it.
Click to expand...
 
rivrrat said:
Yes, you all are if you're using the "it's for the family" argument. If you don't believe that marriage is necessary for raising children, then why would you use the "it's for the children" argument with regard to allowing gay marriage? Doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...

You haven't been paying attention. My argument isn't solely that "it's for the children". Government has a interest in marriage because marriage has been shown to increase the health of the participants, increase social and economic stability AND positively assist in the rearing of children. Notice that the word "procreation" is nowhere in my argument. You are arguing against something that I never said.

The error in the gay marriage argument is the same error that folks make when they discuss whether their is a "gay gene". There is none. If there is a gene, it is a gene that manages sexuality in general. Concurrently, the gay marriage argument, to be successful, needs to be presented from the position of the positives of marriage in general. As soon as gay marriage is separated out, similar to the gay gene, it does not stand on equal footing. It is on equal footing, if only folks would argue it that way.
 
Redress said:
Then some one needs to clearly state the position. Arguing with Jerry on this is arguing against a constantly moving goalpost, because there is no clear position. What exactly is the position, so some one can actually follow and if necessary argue against it?
Click to expand...

I just posted it in post #253. I will do so again: Government has a interest in marriage because marriage has been shown to increase the health of the participants, increase social and economic stability AND positively assist in the rearing of children. Gay marriage fits all of these bills, as research shows. Therefore, legalizing gay marriage increases the health, social and economic stability, and positively assists in the rearing of children, all things that the government has an interest in. Therefore, legalizing it is in the government's interest.
 
Jerry said:
You only had to read the first page:
Click to expand...

Define "is about raising children" please. How do you mandate it? What laws requiring it are needed in your view? See what I am saying about your not being clear? "Is about raising children" is very vague. Do gay people just need to say "yup, we loves kids" and you will be happy?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I just posted it in post #253. I will do so again: Government has a interest in marriage because marriage has been shown to increase the health of the participants, increase social and economic stability AND positively assist in the rearing of children. Gay marriage fits all of these bills, as research shows. Therefore, legalizing gay marriage increases the health, social and economic stability, and positively assists in the rearing of children, all things that the government has an interest in. Therefore, legalizing it is in the government's interest.
Click to expand...

How does that fit legally? As I just asked Jerry, how is "for families" enforced? What laws in addition to one allowing same sex people to marry are needed?
 
Redress said:
I do not see our activity here as "winning or losing" a debate. I think this is where CC goes wrong. It's not about winning. Usually, most people walk away from each conversation thinking they got the best of it. It's not a win or lose type thing, it's an express your opinion in the best way you can type thing.
Click to expand...

One important point on this. This is not about winning a debate on DP. This is about winning the national debate on GM and getting it legal. The direction that Jerry and I have outlined is the way to go. I always say that DP is the world in a small package. What happens here, happens out there on a bigger scale. If Jerry and I can easily win the GM debate using the legitimate and valid position of the benefits of the family, then it can be done, similarly on a much larger scale. And we do win this, every time when we go up against anti-GMers. THIS is the point I am making when I am discussing "winning". It's an easy win. The only defense is to go with the "get government out of marriage altogether" position, which, to me, is a separate argument.
 
Redress said:
How does that fit legally? As I just asked Jerry, how is "for families" enforced? What laws in addition to one allowing same sex people to marry are needed?
Click to expand...

Who's talking about "enforced"?

This is what marriage has always been about sociologically throughout history.

Even in futile Japan and ancient Greece where gay relationships were the norm, "marriage" was about familial stability and raising children.
 
Redress said:
How does that fit legally? As I just asked Jerry, how is "for families" enforced? What laws in addition to one allowing same sex people to marry are needed?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you are asking. Please clarify.
 
rivrrat said:
It rests on the presumption that marriage is FOR procreation to begin with. Or necessary for procreation in some way. Or even necessary for a family at all.
Click to expand...
Marriage is without a doubt the best way adults can strengthen family units. It may not be "necessary", but it is undeniably "beneficial."

Argue what is beneficial for families. There is no lie in this, nor is there deception, nor is there dissembling.
 
celticlord said:
Marriage is without a doubt the best way adults can strengthen family units. It may not be "necessary", but it is undeniably "beneficial."

Argue what is beneficial for families. There is no lie in this, nor is there deception, nor is there dissembling.
Click to expand...

Right on target. This is what we've all been saying. I'm not sure how it is getting missed.
 
Redress said:
How does that fit legally? As I just asked Jerry, how is "for families" enforced? What laws in addition to one allowing same sex people to marry are needed?
Click to expand...
You misapprehend the concept of law.

There is no enforcement consideration, because this is not an argument to be placed before a magistrate. This is an argument to be placed before a legislature.

In other words, this is not about legality, but politics. You want a same sex marriage law passed on a broad scale? Make a pro-family argument supporting it.
 
A Progressive, an Independent and a Conservative all all telling you folks the exact same thing.

The winning argument is the pro-family argument.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
You haven't been paying attention. My argument isn't solely that "it's for the children". Government has a interest in marriage because marriage has been shown to increase the health of the participants, increase social and economic stability AND positively assist in the rearing of children. Notice that the word "procreation" is nowhere in my argument. You are arguing against something that I never said.

The error in the gay marriage argument is the same error that folks make when they discuss whether their is a "gay gene". There is none. If there is a gene, it is a gene that manages sexuality in general. Concurrently, the gay marriage argument, to be successful, needs to be presented from the position of the positives of marriage in general. As soon as gay marriage is separated out, similar to the gay gene, it does not stand on equal footing. It is on equal footing, if only folks would argue it that way.
Click to expand...

CaptainCourtesy said:
I just posted it in post #253. I will do so again: Government has a interest in marriage because marriage has been shown to increase the health of the participants, increase social and economic stability AND positively assist in the rearing of children. Gay marriage fits all of these bills, as research shows. Therefore, legalizing gay marriage increases the health, social and economic stability, and positively assists in the rearing of children, all things that the government has an interest in. Therefore, legalizing it is in the government's interest.
Click to expand...

Okay, let me try to clarify my position and how I read your position (and Jerry's and Celticlord's)

The gist of what you guys are saying is "make nice with the bad guys and they'll more readily accept your position". In other words, the anti-gay marriage folks think that marriage is for and about raising children. So focus on that and win them over. I get the logistical incentives to do that. However, it would require compromising MY values and beliefs in order to argue that. How? Let me try to explain a little better.

It requires that I go along with that presumption that "marriage is for the children". Even acknowledging that it's a valid argument for their side requires that I compromise what I actually believe.

Arguing that gay marriage is "in the government's best interest" goes against what I believe, because marriage shouldn't have anything to do with the government AT ALL, much less be "in their best interest". It's not about the government. It's about individuals and their position of equality in the eyes of the government.

See, if I just wanted to debate or make an issue about raising children, then I would simply argue that gays should be allowed to adopt regardless of marital status. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about marriage, which exists independent of children, is not about children, and not necessary for child rearing.

So for me to turn my argument FOR gay marriage to child rearing issues, it requires that I actually believe marriage is necessary for, or even better for child rearing. But I don't. So I can't.

Now, can I argue that homosexual couples can raise children just as well as hetero? Of course. But that has jack all to do with marriage rights.
 
celticlord said:
Marriage is without a doubt the best way adults can strengthen family units. It may not be "necessary", but it is undeniably "beneficial."

Argue what is beneficial for families. There is no lie in this, nor is there deception, nor is there dissembling.
Click to expand...

I disagree that a piece of paper is beneficial for families. It is, to me, an outright lie.

Loving, caring, responsible people are beneficial for families. No piece of paper required.
 
rivrrat said:
I disagree that a piece of paper is beneficial for families. It is, to me, an outright lie.

Loving, caring, responsible people are beneficial for families. No piece of paper required.
Click to expand...

This post demonstrates a fundamental lack of knowledge of what exactly a marriage is, sociologically and legally.
 
Jerry said:
This post demonstrates a fundamental lack of knowledge of what exactly a marriage is, sociologically and legally.
Click to expand...

You sign a paper and so a couple of other people. You're married. It's pretty damn simple, doesn't really require a whole lot of research.
 
rivrrat said:
Okay, let me try to clarify my position and how I read your position (and Jerry's and Celticlord's)

The gist of what you guys are saying is "make nice with the bad guys and they'll more readily accept your position". In other words, the anti-gay marriage folks think that marriage is for and about raising children. So focus on that and win them over. I get the logistical incentives to do that. However, it would require compromising MY values and beliefs in order to argue that. How? Let me try to explain a little better.

It requires that I go along with that presumption that "marriage is for the children". Even acknowledging that it's a valid argument for their side requires that I compromise what I actually believe.

Arguing that gay marriage is "in the government's best interest" goes against what I believe, because marriage shouldn't have anything to do with the government AT ALL, much less be "in their best interest". It's not about the government. It's about individuals and their position of equality in the eyes of the government.

See, if I just wanted to debate or make an issue about raising children, then I would simply argue that gays should be allowed to adopt regardless of marital status. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about marriage, which exists independent of children, is not about children, and not necessary for child rearing.

So for me to turn my argument FOR gay marriage to child rearing issues, it requires that I actually believe marriage is necessary for, or even better for child rearing. But I don't. So I can't.

Now, can I argue that homosexual couples can raise children just as well as hetero? Of course. But that has jack all to do with marriage rights.
Click to expand...

Your position has nothing to do with GM. Your position is about getting government out of marriage altogether, THAT is why you see it as compromising your position. I'm arguing that apples and oranges are both fruits. You are arguing that we shouldn't be classifying either. Completely different arguments. That's why you can't see it.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
One important point on this. This is not about winning a debate on DP. This is about winning the national debate on GM and getting it legal. The direction that Jerry and I have outlined is the way to go. I always say that DP is the world in a small package. What happens here, happens out there on a bigger scale. If Jerry and I can easily win the GM debate using the legitimate and valid position of the benefits of the family, then it can be done, similarly on a much larger scale. And we do win this, every time when we go up against anti-GMers. THIS is the point I am making when I am discussing "winning". It's an easy win. The only defense is to go with the "get government out of marriage altogether" position, which, to me, is a separate argument.
Click to expand...

I don't think this is quite accurate. The question is whether you can sway people with the argument, and I don't think you can on a large scale. What can and will swing the issue in our favor is time. Young people have a much different view of gays than older people as a group. even in just the last 5 or so years, the attitudes of people overall is shifting very much in our favor, simply because those young people are old enough to vote, and voting more.
 
Jerry said:
This post demonstrates a fundamental lack of knowledge of what exactly a marriage is, sociologically and legally.
Click to expand...

She's coming from an anti-marriage position, Jerry. Completely different argument. That's why she can't see it.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Your position has nothing to do with GM. Your position is about getting government out of marriage altogether, THAT is why you see it as compromising your position. I'm arguing that apples and oranges are both fruits. You are arguing that we shouldn't be classifying either. Completely different arguments. That's why you can't see it.
Click to expand...

No, my position is that the government should be out of it, but if they are to remain in it, then they should not be discriminating.
 
celticlord said:
You misapprehend the concept of law.

There is no enforcement consideration, because this is not an argument to be placed before a magistrate. This is an argument to be placed before a legislature.

In other words, this is not about legality, but politics. You want a same sex marriage law passed on a broad scale? Make a pro-family argument supporting it.
Click to expand...

But the point is, I am not arguing with the general public. I am arguing with people who know the argument. What would be the point of me telling you something you clearly know already?
 
Redress said:
I don't think this is quite accurate. The question is whether you can sway people with the argument, and I don't think you can on a large scale. What can and will swing the issue in our favor is time. Young people have a much different view of gays than older people as a group. even in just the last 5 or so years, the attitudes of people overall is shifting very much in our favor, simply because those young people are old enough to vote, and voting more.
Click to expand...

You are partially right that time will sway things. But I do not agree that I cannot sway folks with my argument. I've done it here. DP is the world on a smaller scale. GM advocates do not use this argument on a large scale. It would be interesting to see what would happen if they did.
 
rivrrat said:
No, my position is that the government should be out of it, but if they are to remain in it, then they should not be discriminating.
Click to expand...

The first part over-rules the second. You have been arguing from a non-governmental intervention standpoint, not from a non-discriminatory standpoint. Further, as has been pointed out several times in this thread, arguing from a non-discriminatory standpoint will not win...and hasn't won. Arguing from a family benefits standpoint will and has. And it is irrelevant as to whether you believe that family benefits exist. They certainly do, again, as has been pointed out many times in this thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom