• 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
I'd certainly vote for it. Marriage has always been a malleable institution. I see no reason for it to suddenly be set in stone.
 
winston53660 said:
Apples and oranges are both fruits.
Click to expand...

But they can be handled separately. Similarity does not mean that things need to be handled as the same thing.
 
celticlord said:
Are they?

So there is agreement and conformity on the definition of "marriage"?

You sure about that?
Click to expand...

Under the law? I dunno for sure, I assume there are pretty straightforward rules, but I am no lawyer. You would know better than I on that.

Note however that this does not mean that both issues need to be handled as one thing, nor should they. It is possible to handle gay marriage without ever touching on the topic of whether marriage should legally require an intent to have children.
 
Redress said:
But they can be handled separately. Similarity does not mean that things need to be handled as the same thing.
Click to expand...
So how is a debate about same sex marriage separable from the definition of marriage?
 
Redress said:
Note however that this does not mean that both issues need to be handled as one thing, nor should they. It is possible to handle gay marriage without ever touching on the topic of whether marriage should legally require an intent to have children.
Click to expand...

It is theoretically possible--if one wishes to exclude a broad brush consideration of procreative intent from the definition of marriage. Of course, that excludes a variety of perspectives from the debate by imposing an arbitrary definition of marriage.

Before anyone can discuss same sex marriage, some level of consensus on what marriage is, legally and philosophically, must be reached. Paradoxically, the same sex marriage debate is at its core a challenge to traditional conceptions of marriage and the definition of the term "marriage"; it cannot be any other way, for if all were to agree that marriage was a union between man and woman, the possibility of same sex marriage disappears completely.
 
celticlord said:
So how is a debate about same sex marriage separable from the definition of marriage?
Click to expand...

Because there is no need to change everything about marriage to allow gay marriage. Children as a required part of marriage is an entirely separate aspect of marriage. You can allow gay marriage without changing how the law views marriage and children, and you can change laws about marriage and children without allowing gay marriage.
 
celticlord said:
It is theoretically possible--if one wishes to exclude a broad brush consideration of procreative intent from the definition of marriage. Of course, that excludes a variety of perspectives from the debate by imposing an arbitrary definition of marriage.
Click to expand...

First, stop replying to posts when I am replying to another of your posts dammit!

Second, is procreative intent(I like that term) required by law now? If not, then from a legal standpoint it is a non issue for gay marriage. The couple examples I saw offered actually did not make that connection.

Before anyone can discuss same sex marriage, some level of consensus on what marriage is, legally and philosophically, must be reached. Paradoxically, the same sex marriage debate is at its core a challenge to traditional conceptions of marriage and the definition of the term "marriage"; it cannot be any other way, for if all were to agree that marriage was a union between man and woman, the possibility of same sex marriage disappears completely.
Click to expand...

Why is there a need to change everything about marriage, to change one aspect of it?
 
Redress said:
The problem is you think too highly of your own arguments.
Click to expand...

I'm right here, slap me down if you can.

Redress said:
Every time you have gotten into the gay marriage debate, your arguments are something of a joke to others.
Click to expand...

Well at least the feeling is mutual. I suspect that's what founds my comrodery with those on the other side of the issue.

Redress said:
You have not actually ever successfully argued against gay marriage.
Click to expand...

Only every time I toy with someone.

Those few who are genuine discover that I don't stand in gay-marriage's way.
 
Redress said:
First, stop replying to posts when I am replying to another of your posts dammit!
Click to expand...
:mrgreen::mrgreen:

Redress said:
Second, is procreative intent(I like that term) required by law now?
Click to expand...
Not so far as I am aware.

Redress said:
If not, then from a legal standpoint it is a non issue for gay marriage. The couple examples I saw offered actually did not make that connection.
Click to expand...
The issue is the definition of marriage--legally as well as culturally. Bear in mind that if one defines marriage as the union of man and woman, then "same sex marriage" becomes a contradiction in terms and thus an absolute impossibility; whatever union or relationship a same sex couple might have, by definition it could not be considered marriage.

Thus, the debate over same sex marriage must at some juncture evolve into a broader debate over the definition of the term "marriage." Indeed, the very existence of the debate over same sex marriage is in large measure little more than a challenge to the traditional and widely accepted definition of marriage as being a union between man and woman.

Invariably, the debate over same sex marriage compels us to resolve the question: "What do we as a society want the definition of 'marriage' to be?" The debate over same sex marriage cannot achieve resolution until this question is also resolved; indeed, this larger question must be resolved first, for the answer to that question will dictate the just answer to the question of same sex marriage.

Jerry argues a definition of marriage that is centered on children and child rearing. That definition guides him to his stance on the matter of same sex marriage.

Redress said:
Why is there a need to change everything about marriage, to change one aspect of it?
Click to expand...
The challenge is to change the definition. By opening the door to that challenge, the door is opened for all potential definitions to be argued and discussed.
 
Redress said:
Because there is no need to change everything about marriage to allow gay marriage. Children as a required part of marriage is an entirely separate aspect of marriage. You can allow gay marriage without changing how the law views marriage and children, and you can change laws about marriage and children without allowing gay marriage.
Click to expand...
This can be done.

Should it be done?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Force. When they do that, I will stand with you. But, I wonder if your and my definition of "force" are the same.
Click to expand...

When one's only reason for opposing gay marriage is religious and one tries to stop gay marriage from being legalized on that basis, that is most certainly trying to force their personal religious views on the whole of society.

Because there was precedence in other laws. Using the discrimination tactic worked because of that. And they could not alter those things, originally without an amendment.
Click to expand...

You keep ignoring that, depending on how far back you step, there is precedence for gay marriage already present in our legal system. We both have the precedent of marriage at all and the call for equal treatment under the law. Refusing gay marriage already violates both of those, we don't need yet another amendment for it.

But you go right on believing whatever you want. More and more states are discovering that gay marriage should already be legal and are declaring it so without any amendment process.
 
Goshin said:
I don't want it called "marriage", because it isn't what marriage has been and meant in almost every culture for thousands of years.
Click to expand...

Who cares? The meaning of words change all the time. What we use the word "gay" for today isn't what it meant just a few decades ago. What one culture uses a word for, such as "fag" may have an entirely different meaning in another.

The argument from tradition is logically fallacious. All that matters is what marriage means right this second and what it means right this second in most nations is entirely secular.
 
mTPIA.jpg
 
celticlord said:
This can be done.

Should it be done?
Click to expand...

That is the obvious question. However, there are two questions when you bring in procreative intent. Should same sex marriage be allowed, and should procreative intent be required. The two are not necessarily tied to each other, and I don't think it is in the best interest of those of us for same sex marriage to try and tie them together. It tends to tie us to what I see as a fringe element group, and only would cost us support.
 
Redress said:
That is the obvious question. However, there are two questions when you bring in procreative intent. Should same sex marriage be allowed, and should procreative intent be required. The two are not necessarily tied to each other, and I don't think it is in the best interest of those of us for same sex marriage to try and tie them together. It tends to tie us to what I see as a fringe element group, and only would cost us support.
Click to expand...
What fringe element group?

Or are you arguing that gay marriage abhors children?
 
celticlord said:
What fringe element group?

Or are you arguing that gay marriage abhors children?
Click to expand...

I do not think that those who want to change marriage to require procreative intent are anything beyond a fringe element group. That is, I think very few people support that position.

No I do not think gay marriage abhors children, I think gay marriage would be good for children.
 
Cephus said:
When one's only reason for opposing gay marriage is religious and one tries to stop gay marriage from being legalized on that basis, that is most certainly trying to force their personal religious views on the whole of society.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, forcing everyone to accept any legal union of two persons as a "marriage", also forces persons who holds the view you outline (per their religion) to accept a definition of "marriage" which is counter to their religion.

While the word "marriage" might only be a word, it is also a religious institution, as well as a legal one at this time. Thus, in my mind, legislating or ruling that gay marriage is legal is a violation of the separation of church and state.

My personal wish is for marriage to be eliminated as a legal method of joining two persons, and that a new institution be created for the same purpose ("civil unions"?).

This, IMO, would eliminate the gay marriage debate in political circles (at least secular political circles). Which IMO is all to the good.
 
Redress said:
No I do not think gay marriage abhors children, I think gay marriage would be good for children.
Click to expand...
So marriage really is all about the children?
 
Gay-marriage doesn't have to be *only* about children because interracial/hetero-marriage certainly is not.

However, 'marriage' per-se is mainly about raising children. If gays can show Conservatives/blacks that their preferred flavor of marriage is also mainly about raising children, then we'll sign off on it and turn the same blind eye to all those other childless gay couples who marry as we do those childless heteros that marry.
 
Last edited:
celticlord said:
So marriage really is all about the children?
Click to expand...

No. Marriage is all about love to my mind. Sometimes this results in children, or in the case of gay marriages, in adopted children, or two parents for children from previous relationships.
 
Jerry said:
Gay-marriage doesn't have to be *only* about children because interracial/hetero-marriage certainly is not.

However, 'marriage' per-se is mainly about raising children. If gays can show Conservatives/blacks that their preferred flavor of marriage is also mainly about raising children, then we'll sign off on it and turn the same blind eye to all those other childless gay couples who marry as we do those childless heteros that marry.
Click to expand...

You are adding extra conditions to gay marriage. I doubt very much that we will need to do this to get enough support in the near future to pass gay marriage.
 
Redress said:
You are adding extra conditions to gay marriage. I doubt very much that we will need to do this to get enough support in the near future to pass gay marriage.
Click to expand...
He is not adding any condition. He is merely articulating a view of marriage that is larger than the two people who marry.

It is not an uncommon view of marriage. Legalities aside, many if not most people marry to build families. In this view, marriage serves a purpose that moves an individual beyond his or her own desires and compels the consideration of others.

Understanding that also sheds light on why a good many people oppose the rationales put forward by same sex marriage advocates. Embedded in the arguments that proceed from "I want" is a subtle dismissal and even rejection of the idea of building families and moving beyond the individual "I want."

Jerry's point speaks to exactly that. If same sex marriage advocates would devote their energies to speaking of building families, of adopting children, of reaching beyond the individual desires, that argument will find a much more receptive audience than the current vapid crying "foul!" using a discrimination thesis that proceeds from a definition of marriage that stands at odds with the traditional understanding of the term.
 
This topic is gay.
 
Cephus said:
Who cares? The meaning of words change all the time. What we use the word "gay" for today isn't what it meant just a few decades ago. What one culture uses a word for, such as "fag" may have an entirely different meaning in another.

The argument from tradition is logically fallacious. All that matters is what marriage means right this second and what it means right this second in most nations is entirely secular.
Click to expand...


A tradition that has served humanity well, on the whole, for thousands of years in a certain form (ie male-female marriage to create families, that most often care for their children), is a tradition that should not be thrown away lightly. Unintended and negative consequences, long-term, are not implausible.

You want civil unions? Have them, I don't care. Just leave the term "marriage" as it has been for millenia.
 
celticlord said:
He is not adding any condition. He is merely articulating a view of marriage that is larger than the two people who marry.

It is not an uncommon view of marriage. Legalities aside, many if not most people marry to build families. In this view, marriage serves a purpose that moves an individual beyond his or her own desires and compels the consideration of others.

Understanding that also sheds light on why a good many people oppose the rationales put forward by same sex marriage advocates. Embedded in the arguments that proceed from "I want" is a subtle dismissal and even rejection of the idea of building families and moving beyond the individual "I want."

Jerry's point speaks to exactly that. If same sex marriage advocates would devote their energies to speaking of building families, of adopting children, of reaching beyond the individual desires, that argument will find a much more receptive audience than the current vapid crying "foul!" using a discrimination thesis that proceeds from a definition of marriage that stands at odds with the traditional understanding of the term.
Click to expand...

There is a significant difference between marrying to start a family, and requiring people to plan to start a family as a condition of marriage. I don't think most people want to see procreation intent as a requirement for marriage.

Edited to add: Oh yeah, and I have linked and quoted stats in this thread on how many gay couples would like to adopt, and how many have their own children. The numbers are not insignificant.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom