• 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?


  • Total voters
    113
That's right, we can create gay-marriage just as we made a right for women to vote: through the legislative branch and the legislative exclusively.

The fact that gays are trying to force their religious beliefs onto the public through judicial fiat only demonstrates an extreme disrespect for the rule of law, favoring the bible over constitution.

what religious beliefs in particular? and how are they trying to force them on the public.
Catholics have beliefs I don't agree with, and are even vocal about them, but I just ignore them. It's easy....
 
Lots of bites....but they don't meashure up, I have to toss them back.
 
Right, so long as we understand each other.

Gays want to marry? Fine, great, pull up a chair; but gay-marriage will be what hetero-marriage is for, raising children, and NOT the expression of individual rights, AND gay marriage will be established through perfectly constitutional means, not the court system.

Who are you to put conditions on it? Strait people can marry with no intention or ability to have children, so gays should be able to do the exact same thing.
 
Who are you to put conditions on it?

A citizen and voter with the civil duty to stand up and demand that due process be respected.

Strait people can marry with no intention or ability to have children, so gays should be able to do the exact same thing.

Fine, great, no problem, let's do it, but it happens through due process or it doesn't happen at all.
 
Yeah, children with a stranger's genes in them.
Would you want a stranger's genes in your baby? :2razz:

Yes, especially if the stranger's genes are generally superior to either mine or Leslie's. Every advantage for my children, no matter how strange or how far I have to go to obtain it. I'd incorporate synthetic or even non-human genes into my children if I thought it would give them a competitive advantage.

Leslie and I have already discussed reproductive options, and we are still considering and discussing those options.

It matters to me because I see homosexuality as a block to reproduction.

There are more than sufficient means around such obstacles, even for couples who are not wealthy enough to avail themselves of modern reproductive technology. Worst case scenario, almost every member of either biological sex is capable of suppressing their instinctual distaste long enough to get the job done.

Anybody willing to vote for for legal marriage for gay couples should also be willing to vote for legal polygamy marriages.

Separate animals with separate legal concerns, and, really, with different reasoning in support. Despite my own support for it, the case against polygamy is considerably stronger than the case against gay marriage.

Any form of polygamy will require reforms to the laws concerning legal parentage, whether it can be shared by multiple persons or how it is to be determine. It will require massive changes in divorce law (though this is already desirable) and changes in how matters such as financial and custody disputes are handled.

Polyandry is almost as much an impediment to reproduction as homosexuality is, and unless the husbands are very close, it is likely to to lead to considerable domestic conflict. There's a strong reason why the majority, if not the entirety, of polyandrous societies required that the multiple husbands be brothers.

Polygyny is practically ideal for reproduction, but it leads to "surplus males" in society which aggravates nearly every form of social unrest, from juvenile delinquency to political demonstrations to violent insurrection. I'm a strong supporter of polygyny, but I recognize the necessity of having strong measures in place to deal with the stresses caused by surplus males.

Other forms of polygamous marriage, such as group and line marriage, all carry their own legal and societal consequences.

In order to have an effective argument on polygamy, it's necessary to determine exactly what forms of polygamy you are discussing-- which forms you are considering legalizing-- and then tailor the argument to those forms. Simply legalizing it en masse is a recipe for disaster.

Same sex marriage is legal in Canada. If it were not and I could vote, I would vote against this. Same sex couples can get equal rights with civil unions. Why must they call it marriage?

Because the law does not work that way. If it isn't called "marriage", then it isn't really marriage and all of the laws which apply to marriage do not apply to it. It is a separate institution, with separate legal rights, and as a new institution it is only partially formed. There are no equal rights in separate institutions.
 
OMFG. Has anyone checked out the advertisement on this page?

All gay cruises? Thats scary.
 
I would say that most of those who vote against gay marriage are ignorant bigots, and none of them understand the basics of morality or logic.

Do you say that most of those who oppose legalizing polygamy are also ignorant bigots and none of htem understand the basics of morality or logic?
 
Do you say that most of those who oppose legalizing polygamy are also ignorant bigots and none of htem understand the basics of morality or logic?

IMO, a man who wants more than one wife at a time is thinking with his small head only.....morals have nothing to do with it, logically it is a dangerous endeavor....
 
what religious beliefs in particular? and how are they trying to force them on the public.
Catholics have beliefs I don't agree with, and are even vocal about them, but I just ignore them. It's easy....
You must have run across some bad Catholics, I am one and don't share my beliefs with anyone unless asked about them, what they mean, and why they stand, I am in a densely populated Catholic area and have seen maybe 10 fellow Catholics in my life that match your description.
 
You must have run across some bad Catholics, I am one and don't share my beliefs with anyone unless asked about them, what they mean, and why they stand, I am in a densely populated Catholic area and have seen maybe 10 fellow Catholics in my life that match your description.

you are correct, very few do share without asking.....
once we had 2 couples over to our house for a cookout, and they got in an argument over some doctrine...we stayed out of it, but IIRC, I didn't agree with either of them...:lol:
I used catholics in my example, but can same the same about any organized religion.
 
I used catholics in my example, but can same the same about any organized religion.
Cool, I don't think overall that most religions represent the "religious", i.e. most religion I believe is about personal salvation and how to treat people in that particular god's name, and that the zealots make the rest look bad, however, I have seen a few niche sects in all religions where zealotry and prostelitizing are as ingrained in the teachings as the scriptures and rites.
 
I am all for gay marriages. But I admit the one aspect that I do not like is adoption. But that is an argument for another day.
 
Because the law does not work that way. If it isn't called "marriage", then it isn't really marriage and all of the laws which apply to marriage do not apply to it. It is a separate institution, with separate legal rights, and as a new institution it is only partially formed. There are no equal rights in separate institutions.

In your opinion, what is it that same sex couples want that they can not get with in a civil union?
 
In your opinion, what is it that same sex couples want that they can not get with in a civil union?

In your opinion, what is it that would be taken away from hetero couples if gays are allowed to get married?
 
In your opinion, what is it that would be taken away from hetero couples if gays are allowed to get married?

I think this issue is so large because people fear what they do not understand. People feel that gay marriage is unnatural and/or morally wrong. However, much science indicates that the brain of a homosexual man, resembles that of a woman. Thought patterns and actual brain physiology look much more like that of a woman than that of a man. So when asking what hetero couples will lose, the answer of course is nothing. But the thought of two men or women being married, is an idea in the abnormal for most, thus it is to be shunned.
 
In your opinion, what is it that would be taken away from hetero couples if gays are allowed to get married?

The tradition of hetrosexual married where two people have and raise there own children. So, I guess it would be tradition that my parents have that I do not think I want. If Canada and Finnland already do not have same sex marriage, I will be happy with civil union. My friends they do not think so but I do.
 
Call it exclusivity, tradition or what ever so why change it?
 
Call it exclusivity, tradition or what ever so why change it?

Every injustice institution was a tradition until it was changed.
 
Nothing if it is needed. It is not needed here, unless of course, you are a political in need of the vote.

Do you not feel that by denying same sex marriages, we are treating homosexuals as second class citizens?
 
Back
Top Bottom