• 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
I don't think the "it's for the children" argument will win many hearts out there. I can totally see where you all are coming from with that and it's a good solid argument. However, the majority of people who oppose gay marriage that I've come across do so because the idea of same-sex relationships repulses them on an instinctual level. They see it as abnormal, unnatural, sinful and disgusting. The idea that these people they look upon with such scorn are actually raising children is even more shocking to them. I've even heard the argument that the best thing for these children would be to take them away from this "damaging" environment. Solid as the argument may be, I highly doubt it will sway any significant number of gay-marriage opponents.
The contingent of people who believe homosexuality in all its forms is immoral and unnatural are not likely to be swayed by any argument. That much is true.

The contingent of people who feel strongly in this way are also very much a minority.

A pro-family rhetoric in support of same sex marriage is the rhetoric that would accentuate and isolate that minority. That argument compels such opponents of same sex relationships to argue against a significant body of research data that demonstrates the fitness of same sex couples to be fit parents, or to quit the debate altogether--their choices are relegation to the fringes of society for their hatred and prejudice, or quiet acquiescence.
 
Strange as it may seem, no they are not. There is a qualitative difference between an unmarried but loving couple and a married but loving couple. Both can be profound and meaningful relationships, but they are different. I can attest to this from direct personal experience on both sides of that equation.
Of course they're different. One is a legal contract, one is not. But as you said, both can be profound and meaningful. That piece of paper doesn't make it so.

Perversely enough, the same sex marriage debate itself is the proof that lays this canard to rest, for if it were as you claim, same sex couples would not feel compelled to pursue a quest for a right to marry.
Not true, since marriage bestows legal privileges that unmarried folks have to jump through more hoops to obtain. Therefore, homosexual sexual couples feel they should not have to jump through hoops to obtain the same privileges that married couples have automatically.

I want to take a moment to reiterate an important point here: "different" is not universally "better". Not every loving couple requires the sacrament of marriage to fulfill the potential of their relationship. Each individual, within their particular relationships, must decide whether the sacrament of marriage will or will not enhance their relationships. That is not in question here.

However, society in general does take a more positive view of married couples as opposed to unmarried couples, and the empirical data is quite clear that the sacrament of marriage positively correlates to stronger, healthier relationships, as well as healthier individuals. As healthy relationships, leading to healthy families, are the foundation of a healthy society, if government is going to regulate marriage--which it will for at least the foreseeable future--having such regulation be guided by a principle of facilitating strong relationships and strong families across the broad swath of society is prudent and proper.
Society in general is changing, and has been for some time. Society in general does not frown upon unmarried couples the way it used to and that will only continue to progress.

As for marriages being "stronger, healthier relationships", the over 60% divorce rate would suggest that the "stronger healthier relationships" are the minority of marriages.
 
The contingent of people who believe homosexuality in all its forms is immoral and unnatural are not likely to be swayed by any argument. That much is true.

The contingent of people who feel strongly in this way are also very much a minority.

A pro-family rhetoric in support of same sex marriage is the rhetoric that would accentuate and isolate that minority. That argument compels such opponents of same sex relationships to argue against a significant body of research data that demonstrates the fitness of same sex couples to be fit parents, or to quit the debate altogether--their choices are relegation to the fringes of society for their hatred and prejudice, or quiet acquiescence.

I'd like to believe that they are the minority, but I really don't think they are. I think it's the opposite. The minority are the ones who would be swayed by this argument. Once you put "children" and "gay-marriage" in the same sentence, the crap immediately hits the fan. Even here in Europe the majority of people do not want gays anywhere near children, which is why most countries have domestic partnerships in place but will not allow gays to adopt.
 
The Mark said:
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.

Too bad. Religion doesn't own the word 'marriage' nor do they have any control over how it is used.

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.

That's utterly ridiculous. Marriage has evolved quite a bit over the past couple of decades, it's no longer primarily a religious ceremony, but is almost entirely a secular legal contract. Religion, if it ever had control over it, lost that control a long, long time ago.

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"?).

Which is downright stupid, we already have a perfectly good word to describe what's going on, that word is 'marriage' and there's no need to invent another one to make a bunch of religious people feel good. Religious marriages are entirely symbolic today, you can't get married by standing up before a priest or whatever, that's just for show. The marriage happens when you get the license from the state, not before.
 
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.

You keep saying that no matter how many times you're proven to be completely wrong. Why is that?
 
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.

No. There's no need for "separate but equal" in the equation, if two people are going to get married, let them get married, we don't need to create new forms of marriage to keep the religious feeling good about themselves. We can do just fine with only one word, thank you very much.
 
So supporting gay marriage also means a person supports polygamy? That would seem your point. Maybe the Stonewalls should be more open about that to support gay marriage then leads to legalizing polygamy.

I'm not saying that it does or doesn't, I'm saying that you keep posting over and over that people are against polygamy when I don't think you could point to a single post in this thread that would support that view and there are many that absolutely do support it.

If you want to go debate the point, start a thread and we can do that, although again, I don't think you'll find a lot of opposition. If someone off-site is being anti-polygamy, then maybe you ought to go debate with them, certainly doing it here isn't going to get you anywhere in that regard.
 
Seriously? Did you even read my posts?

LiveUninhibited, I want to have a good debate with ya, but I need you to learn something about using the quote code so that your posts are clearer.

When you quote someone, there some numbers next to their name. It's a good idea to copy these numbers with their name and the "=" and paste them into the first quote brackets.

Take the post of yours I just quoted for example. Without the "=LiveUninhibited;1058120711", it would look like this:

Seriously? Did you even read my posts?
Now you're quoting a lot of stuff, which is great, and your quoting different DP members in the same post, which is fine, but things can get confusing pretty quick if you don't have the correct code in place to show who said what with the permalink going back to the post you're quoting.

It's easier than I make it sound.

If I had just quoted you but forgot the link code, I would just edit the post to copy/paste the code:

jerry-albums-jerry-s-junk-picture486-untitled.bmp


If you have a few quote boxes dividing up someone's post, just take that same code and paste it into the first quote bracket for each one, like this:


Easy peezy.
 
Last edited:
LiveUninhibited, I want to have a good debate with ya, but I need you to learn something about using the quote code so that your posts are clearer.

When you quote someone, there some numbers next to their name. It's a good idea to copy these numbers with their name and the "=" and paste them into the first quote brackets.

Take the post of yours I just quoted for example. Without the "=LiveUninhibited;1058120711", it would look like this:


Now you're quoting a lot of stuff, which is great, and your quoting different DP members in the same post, which is fine, but things can get confusing pretty quick if you don't have the correct code in place to show who said what with the permalink going back to the post you're quoting.

It's easier than I make it sound.

If I had just quoted you but forgot the link code, I would just edit the post to copy/paste the code:

jerry-albums-jerry-s-junk-picture486-untitled.bmp


If you have a few quote boxes dividing up someone's post, just take that same code and paste it into the first quote bracket for each one, like this:








Easy peezy.

I realize that, but it is still more work than pressing the quote button. When I'm quoting a new person, I will put a new quote code, until then it is the same person I am quoting as the last one. You should be able to remember what you had previously said. I didn't expect a substantive reply anyway.
 
I realize that, but it is still more work than pressing the quote button. When I'm quoting a new person, I will put a new quote code, until then it is the same person I am quoting as the last one. You should be able to remember what you had previously said. I didn't expect a substantive reply anyway.

Jerry's right. It makes it easier for us to reply to your posts. Many of us are posting on many threads at the same time and with the format that you use it is difficult to know who you are responding to. Changing your format may get you the substantive reply that you are looking for. Just being snotty probably won't.
 
I realize that, but it is still more work than pressing the quote button. When I'm quoting a new person, I will put a new quote code, until then it is the same person I am quoting as the last one. You should be able to remember what you had previously said. I didn't expect a substantive reply anyway.

Yeah, it takes more time. The reason I don't get into involved debates and thoroughly back up my every word with folks who don't represent themselves as anything more than bitter partisan hacks is because of how long it takes to make a post.

Some random hack (not you) starts demanding links and exhaustive answers to their many questions (most of which are loaded)....hell no I'm not putting that much effort into a post just for them. They're not worth it, at least until the loaded questions and personal attacks stop. Then I'll test the water.

Take that screen shot in my last post highlighting where to grab the hyperlink code from: that took me 5-6 minutes. Even with cut-n-paste, do you know how long it takes to get the peanutbutterjelly song right? Then take the screen shot, put it in my photoshop and crop to fit and add the red oval, save to the desktop, then upload to my DP album, then link to in that post...time wasted because for all the effort I didn't get a single 'thanks'.

That's just the way it is.

Look, I'm trying to be cool about it. As a Hall Monitor, I have a reputation to protect, so if you really want I can become a whiny little bitch and fault everything you post because failing to make your argument clear is a logical fallacy.

I like new folks, though, so I want to give you some tools to make your debate in this forum an enjoyable experience.

You can take it or leave it.

***
5 minutes after posting this I'm still editing it....see what I mean?
 
Last edited:
Jerry's right. It makes it easier for us to reply to your posts. Many of us are posting on many threads at the same time and with the format that you use it is difficult to know who you are responding to. Changing your format may get you the substantive reply that you are looking for. Just being snotty probably won't.

He started it... wait actually you started it. :2razz:
 
So, let me get this straight, a person who holds the belief that Homosexuality is not natural is probably a fool?
I see Courtesy, I see.

IMO, yup. It's a logical fallacy that can easily be disproven.
 
Then disprove it, if it's so easily disproved.

Present the argument, precisely, so I know what I am disproving. I have a migraine tonight, so creating arguments from nothing is not on my agenda. Too much work. :)

EDIT: In fact...I'm logging off. Migraines make the brain work poorly. I'll try to respond to your argument, tomorrow. :2wave:
 
Last edited:
Present the argument, precisely, so I know what I am disproving. I have a migraine tonight, so creating arguments from nothing is not on my agenda. Too much work. :)

EDIT: In fact...I'm logging off. Migraines make the brain work poorly. I'll try to respond to your argument, tomorrow. :2wave:
I'm sorry for your migraine but the argument is quite obvious.
"fools claim homosexuality isn't natural", hence the argument is whether homosexuality is natural or not.
If you didn't know what the argument is, how did you know that it could be easily disproved? :shock:

Edit: Alright, tomorrow then.
 
I'm sorry for your migraine but the argument is quite obvious.
"fools claim homosexuality isn't natural", hence the argument is whether homosexuality is natural or not.
If you didn't know what the argument is, how did you know that it could be easily disproved? :shock:

Edit: Alright, tomorrow then.

Well, it might be unfair to call somebody a fool because they harbor a single foolish belief, but yes, it is foolish.

This isn't the best wikipedia article, but it might help you get it:

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature]Appeal to nature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

It's no so much that it's foolish to argue about how natural or unnatural homosexuality is, it's foolish because it is morally irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
Well, it might be unfair to call somebody a fool because they harbor a single foolish belief, but yes, it is foolish.

This isn't the best wikipedia article, but it might help you get it:

Appeal to nature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's no so much that it's foolish to argue about how natural or unnatural homosexuality is, it's foolish because it is morally irrelevant.
If it's morally irrelevant it doesn't mean that it is foolish.
In my opinion Liberalism is foolish, so basically every Liberal is a fool.
 
If it's morally irrelevant it doesn't mean that it is foolish.
In my opinion Liberalism is foolish, so basically every Liberal is a fool.

Your initial post in this thread stated that you would not vote yes, but rather would not vote, because you did not want to promote the idea that homosexuality is natural. You obviously equate natural with desirable, at the very least, and I can only assume you find homosexuality morally distasteful. So that is foolish, as appeal to nature is a fallacy.

It's not a matter of opinion so much as logic...
 
Your initial post in this thread stated that you would not vote yes, but rather would not vote, because you did not want to promote the idea that homosexuality is natural. You obviously equate natural with desirable, at the very least, and I can only assume you find homosexuality morally distasteful. So that is foolish, as appeal to nature is a fallacy.

It's not a matter of opinion so much as logic...
In my opinion homosexuality is not natural.
I do not care for what 'natural' means, whether it is right or wrong, in my opinion, it isn't natural, period.
Now how is that foolish?
Claiming that some people's thoughts and beliefs that differ than yours are foolish is just wrong.
The only fools are the ones who do it.
 
In my opinion homosexuality is not natural.
I do not care for what 'natural' means, whether it is right or wrong, in my opinion, it isn't natural, period.
Now how is that foolish?
Claiming that some people's thoughts and beliefs that differ than yours are foolish is just wrong.
The only fools are the ones who do it.

It is important to try to get people to question their own views and analyze them critically, but you are correct that calling them a fool will mostly make them defensive and continue to say irrational things.

If you do not think natural is relevant to what is right or wrong, then why do you care about it in terms of whether you will vote for homosexual marriage? That's the paradox here. It is possible to have a value-neutral debate about whether homosexuality is natural, but you did not present it that way.
 
It is important to try to get people to question their own views and analyze them critically, but you are correct that calling them a fool will mostly make them defensive and continue to say irrational things.

If you do not think natural is relevant to what is right or wrong, then why do you care about it in terms of whether you will vote for homosexual marriage? That's the paradox here. It is possible to have a value-neutral debate about whether homosexuality is natural, but you did not present it that way.
My belief is that homosexuality is not natural.
I also believe that voting for gay marriage would counter my belief by legitimizing homosexuality as natural in the law.
I do not appeal to the meaning of natural, but to my theory that it isn't natural, and to the fact that I would counter my own theory by voting for gay marriage.
Why is it so hard to understand?
Perhaps you should be questioning your own belief, before claiming that other people's beliefs are foolish, and only make yourself appear as a fool in the process.
 
Back
Top Bottom