• 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

joko104

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
65,981
Reaction score
23,408
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Would you vote to legalizing same gender marriages if the issue was on an election ballot and you could vote in the election?

Only two options are given as that is how an election would work.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely. I would love to do so, and would be proud of my vote.
 
Yes without a doubt. I understand that marriage has been one thing for thousands of years and it's difficult for some people to want to see it changed, but by the time my generation takes over it will definitely be legal everywhere.
 
I will vote for anything that represents "freedom and justice FOR ALL".
 
If these were the only two choices, then yes, I would.
 
Would you vote to legalizing same gender marriages if the issue was on an election ballot and you could vote in the election?

Only two options are given as that is how an election would work.

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.
 
Last edited:
I have personally never needed to cast a vote on the issue of Gay marriage and never will have to, my MP did it for me but absolutely i would.
 
Last edited:
Of course! Only some homophobic freak would say no:(
 
Of course! Only some homophobic freak would say no:(

I'm not sure one can make an absolutist statement like that.
 
Where in the sentence?

OK, so it takes a bit more than just that word. How about this sentence: "Of course! Homophobic freaks would make up 98 % of the no votes."
 
OK, so it takes a bit more than just that word. How about this sentence: "Of course! Homophobic freaks would make up 98 % of the no votes."

I might not agree with the statement, but that would not be absolutist.

How about this statement, "Of course! Homophobic freaks would make up some of the no votes."
 
OK, so it takes a bit more than just that word. How about this sentence: "Of course! Homophobic freaks would make up 98 % of the no votes."

Not even close to being true. It has more to do with the fear of changing something that has remained unchanged for thousands of years. I happen to live with a family who would vote "no", none of them homophobic.

EDIT: Actually, they already have voted "no". The proposition passed through Virginia some time ago.
 
Last edited:
I might not agree with the statement, but that would not be absolutist.

How about this statement, "Of course! Homophobic freaks would make up some of the no votes."

Not strong enough.
 
Not strong enough.

I don't agree...it needs to be somewhat weak to reflect the ambiguity of the statement, but I am open to suggestions. Give it another shot. :2razz:
 
I don't agree...it needs to be somewhat weak to reflect the ambiguity of the statement, but I am open to suggestions. Give it another shot. :2razz:

The vast majority of people voting against gay marriage are homophobic freaks.
 
The vast majority of people voting against gay marriage are homophobic freaks.

Do you think that's true? I think that the vast majority of those voting against gay marriage would be religious folks who, not homophobic, just take their belief in religion, literally; those who are set in their ways and do not understand that this would not affect them; or those who believe that there should not be special privileges for any people who are married. I don't think that homophobes make up the vast majority, that's why I like my statement, better. Do you have evidence that shows me incorrect? Again, I am open to this being possible.
 
Do you think that's true? I think that the vast majority of those voting against gay marriage would be religious folks who, not homophobic, just take their belief in religion, literally; those who are set in their ways and do not understand that this would not affect them; or those who believe that there should not be special privileges for any people who are married. I don't think that homophobes make up the vast majority, that's why I like my statement, better. Do you have evidence that shows me incorrect? Again, I am open to this being possible.

Personal opinion only. I guess it would depend on how you define the term homophobe. To me, it is anyone with an irrational desire to not grant gays full rights, including the right to marry and serve openly in the military.
 
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.

Who said heterosexual marriage is about raising children? I mean, that might be what your marriage is about, but there are infertile people or those who don't want kids. Do you propose they not be allowed to marry either?

Not even close to being true. It has more to do with the fear of changing something that has remained unchanged for thousands of years. I happen to live with a family who would vote "no", none of them homophobic.

EDIT: Actually, they already have voted "no". The proposition passed through Virginia some time ago.

Appeal to tradition is a fallacy, though. It's very wrong for people to vote against allowing others to have the same right to form a legal contract with who they love and loves them. They are causing suffering for no reason at all.

Do you think that's true? I think that the vast majority of those voting against gay marriage would be religious folks who, not homophobic, just take their belief in religion, literally; those who are set in their ways and do not understand that this would not affect them; or those who believe that there should not be special privileges for any people who are married. I don't think that homophobes make up the vast majority, that's why I like my statement, better. Do you have evidence that shows me incorrect? Again, I am open to this being possible.

When did marrying who you love become a special privilege? It would seem like equality under the law to me.

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.
 
When did marrying who you love become a special privilege? It would seem like equality under the law to me.

When did I say what you just said?

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.

And that would be your opinion. Do you have anything to back up this claim?
 
When did I say what you just said?

Do you think that's true? I think that the vast majority of those voting against gay marriage would be religious folks who, not homophobic, just take their belief in religion, literally; those who are set in their ways and do not understand that this would not affect them; or those who believe that there should not be special privileges for any people who are married. I don't think that homophobes make up the vast majority, that's why I like my statement, better. Do you have evidence that shows me incorrect? Again, I am open to this being possible.

I know you weren't necessarily citing it as your own opinion, but it is what I was referring to.


And that would be your opinion. Do you have anything to back up this claim?

1. Marriage is not a purely religious institution, but a legal one. As such, it falls under the equal protection clauses of the US and most State Constitutions. While I personally don't care what the law says, the legal basis for gay marriage is well-established by the analogous legal battle over anti-miscegenation, culminating in Loving v. Virginia which struck down laws against interracial marriage despite overwhelming public opinion against the decision. Some would argue that anti-miscegenation was based upon race, but it discriminated against both Blacks and Whites as a White man could not marry a Black woman if he wanted to. In reality, it was discriminatory against a specific sexual orientation, much like laws against gay marriage.

2. Logically, the equal protection clauses are critical. Equal justice under the law is a critical component of the law if the public is going to maintain any respect for it, and for the law to make society function more optimally by minimizing the creation of its own injustices. The law may never be perfect, but so long as it strives to treat people equally it will maximize fairness, justice, and a better society.

3. It is a ridiculous idea that legalizing gay marriage will force churches to marry gays. The Mormons weren't required to marry Black people after Loving v. Virginia, any church will still be able to marry or not marry whoever they want.

4. It is ridiculous that traditional marriage components argue from tradition, which is a fallacy.

5. It is furthermore ridiculous that they argue it will undermine the sanctity of marriage, as marriage is a legal contract that can only be "sanctified" by those involved in it. Sanctified marriage never existed, institutionally, as people were forced to marry for economic reasons before, people sometimes marry for sex alone today, people of other faiths have usually had some form of marriage (not always monogamous or heterosexual, either), and at least half of marriages end before either die. There is no inherent sanctity in marriage, it must be created in every marriage. Otherwise, marriage is just a civil contract, and that's all it needs to be as far as the law is concerned.

6. It is also ridiculous that they try to make marriage about children, because not all marriages, even between religious people, involve children.
 
Last edited:
I know you weren't necessarily citing it as your own opinion, but it is what I was referring to.

You're correct. It wasn't my opinion. It was my supposition of the opinion of those who would oppose gay marriage.

1. Marriage is not a purely religious institution, but a legal one. As such, it falls under the equal protection clauses of the US and most State Constitutions. While I personally don't care what the law says, the legal basis for gay marriage is well-established by the analogous legal battle over anti-miscegenation, culminating in Loving v. Virginia which struck down laws against interracial marriage despite overwhelming public opinion against the decision. Some would argue that anti-miscegenation was based upon race, but it discriminated against both Blacks and Whites as a White man could not marry a Black woman if he wanted to. In reality, it was discriminatory against a specific sexual orientation, much like laws against gay marriage.

Marriage may not be a religious institution, but it's origins are based on religion. This is an argument that those opposed make.

And Loving v. Virginia does not apply, here. Jerry has argued this, successfully, many times. The equal protection argument is a failed argument because you can't get around the "gay men can still marry women, and gay women can still marry men" argument, unless you go with marrying for love...which is not covered by legal tenets. Under today's laws, when using the equal protection argument, the gay marriage argument is a failure.

I will let Jerry handle this portion, further. He's better at this section than I.

2. Logically, the equal protection clauses are critical. Equal justice under the law is a critical component of the law if the public is going to maintain any respect for it, and for the law to make society function more optimally by minimizing the creation of its own injustices. The law may never be perfect, but so long as it strives to treat people equally it will maximize fairness, justice, and a better society.

See above. Loser of an argument for the reasons I cited. Jerry will have a field day with this.

3. It is a ridiculous idea that legalizing gay marriage will force churches to marry gays. The Mormons weren't required to marry Black people after Loving v. Virginia, any church will still be able to marry or not marry whoever they want.

This I agree with, as it is a different argument. This is more of a church vs. state argument. The state can choose to marry whoever it wants. And the church can choose to recognize, not recognize, or marry whoever it wants. And these need to be totally separate entities.

4. It is ridiculous that traditional marriage components argue from tradition, which is a fallacy.

I agree with this.

5. It is furthermore ridiculous that they argue it will undermine the sanctity of marriage, as marriage is a legal contract that can only be "sanctified" by those involved in it. Sanctified marriage never existed, institutionally, as people were forced to marry for economic reasons before, people sometimes marry for sex alone today, people of other faiths have usually had some form of marriage (not always monogamous or heterosexual, either), and at least half of marriages end before either die. There is no inherent sanctity in marriage, it must be created in every marriage. Otherwise, marriage is just a civil contract, and that's all it needs to be as far as the law is concerned.

I agree with this, also, which is why I argue from the position of a two-tiered approach. Everyone has a governmental civil union. Churches issue "marriages".

6. It is also ridiculous that they try to make marriage about children, because not all marriages, even between religious people, involve children.

The winning argument in the gay marriage debate is to make it about rearing children and the positives that family creates, economically, socially, and healthwise. This is where data and evidence rule the day.
 
Marriage may not be a religious institution, but it's origins are based on religion. This is an argument that those opposed make.

Yet using that as an argument against gay marriage is still an appeal to tradition, which is fallacy.

And Loving v. Virginia does not apply, here. Jerry has argued this, successfully, many times. The equal protection argument is a failed argument because you can't get around the "gay men can still marry women, and gay women can still marry men" argument, unless you go with marrying for love...which is not covered by legal tenets. Under today's laws, when using the equal protection argument, the gay marriage argument is a failure.

Well I'm not sure what you mean by "successful" because that's a rather pathetic yet common argument. Under anti-miscegenation laws, one could have made the exact same argument by stating that, "Whites and Blacks have the same rights. Both must marry within their race."

Suppose the majority decided that people must marry somebody who has a different hair color than them. Yeah, everybody has the "same right" to marry under this restriction but this restriction will carry different meanings for different people. If the person happens to like somebody with a different hair color, it means nothing to them. If the person feels they are "only attracted" to blondes and they are themselves blonde, then they are not being treated equally under the law. They can't marry the person they want to.

Even if you assume sexual orientation is a choice, it's no more of a choice than religious orientation. The point is it's unreasonable to ask somebody to change something so central to who they are in order to enjoy their rights. The only exception would be if they were actually harming a 3rd party, as I mentioned in the examples above.

There are more legit reasons for telling somebody they can't marry. For example if one party is incompetent to enter into contracts. We disallow siblings from marrying primarily because they would pass on horrendous genetic defects to their offspring. But arbitrarily limiting people's right to marry who they want is causing unnecessary suffering.

I agree with this, also, which is why I argue from the position of a two-tiered approach. Everyone has a governmental civil union. Churches issue "marriages".

That would be okay with me. As long as they're treated the same under the law. I'm not okay with the separate but equal conditions others have suggested on other forums.


The winning argument in the gay marriage debate is to make it about rearing children and the positives that family creates, economically, socially, and healthwise. This is where data and evidence rule the day.

That argument fails because that's not what marriage does unless the people involved in it work for it. It has nothing to do with other marriages. Not all hetero marriages are about rearing children, and we need not require them to do so. So unless we require hetero marriages to be about children, which would be deplorable, it is unfair to demand the same of homosexuals.
 
Last edited:
Yet using that as an argument against gay marriage is still an appeal to tradition, which is fallacy.

I'm not arguing the position. All I'm saying is how those opposed would argue it. I agree with you.

Well I'm not sure what you mean by "successful" because that's a rather pathetic yet common argument. Under anti-miscegenation laws, one could have made the exact same argument by stating that, "Whites and Blacks have the same rights. Both must marry within their race."

Yes, but under anti-discrimination laws, this argument would fail. A white man not being allowed to marry a black woman is discriminatory under the law, because it prevents something that is legal, with the exception of race. A white man not being allowed to marry a black MAN is not discriminatory under the law. At this time, when it comes to marriage laws, sexual orientation is not recognized as discriminatory. In order to change the law, you have to have cause. The discrimination argument doesn't cut it because gay folks can already marry...just not someone of the same sex. This is why the family argument will win because there is plenty of research to support it. One cannot argue the discrimination position with any valid research. A gay man can still marry a woman will always stop the argument dead in the water.

Suppose the majority decided that people must marry somebody who has a different hair color than them. Yeah, everybody has the "same right" to marry under this restriction but this restriction will carry different meanings for different people. If the person happens to like somebody with a different hair color, it means nothing to them. If the person feels they are "only attracted" to blondes and they are themselves blonde, then they are not being treated equally under the law. They can't marry the person they want to.

You cannot legislated "love" or "want to". It is not logical. Currently, a man can marry a women, regardless of sexual orientation. Going with the "love" argument, is a loser argument. What if someone "loves" their dog? I've done this debate many, many times. The discrimination is a failed argument. Far too many potholes.

Even if you assume sexual orientation is a choice, it's no more of a choice than religious orientation. The point is it's unreasonable to ask somebody to change something so central to who they are in order to enjoy their rights. The only exception would be if they were actually harming a 3rd party, as I mentioned in the examples above.

I do not assume sexual orientation is a choice. Nor do I hold that not legalizing gay marriage is right. But it's not about what is right; it's about what can be proven and what is a winning argument. Discrimination is a loser argument. I am pro-GM, and I've already shredded your position on this. An anti-GM person will do better.

There are more legit reasons for telling somebody they can't marry. For example if one party is incompetent to enter into contracts. We disallow siblings from marrying primarily because they would pass on horrendous genetic defects to their offspring. But arbitrarily limiting people's right to marry who they want is causing unnecessary suffering.

"Love" cannot be legislated. Gays can still marry...no one is telling them they cannot. They have the same rights as anyone else.



That would be okay with me. As long as they're treated the same under the law. I'm not okay with the separate but equal conditions others have suggested on other forums.

Separate but equal wasn't. It was stupid 120 years ago and it's stupid now. They must be treated the same under the law.

That argument fails because that's not what marriage does unless the people involved in it work for it. It has nothing to do with other marriages. Not all hetero marriages are about rearing children, and we need not require them to do so. So unless we require hetero marriages to be about children, which would be deplorable, it is unfair to demand the same of homosexuals.

The argument is the winning argument in this debate, You did not read the entire thing. It is not only about children, though that would be a cornerstone. Married couples live longer, are healthier, do more to support the government, do better economically, are more stable, socially, etc... The position is not only about children. It's about creating a more solid society. The government has an interest in all of this, and that is how to win this argument. Find what the government has an interest in and exploit it. There is nothing to be gained from the discrimination argument alone and there are far to many solid refutations. The family/society/benefit of the government is the winning argument.
 
Back
Top Bottom