• 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!

Should Same Sex People be allowed to Marry

Should Same Sex People be allowed to Marry

  • yes,-- everybody should be treated equal

    Votes: 69 74.2%

  • No--some people should recieve preferential treatment

    Votes: 24 25.8%
  • Total voters
    93
I believe state-sanctioned marriages should be abolished all together, but if we're going to have them then gays should be able to get married as well.
 
Coronado said:
What makes you think married guys get any action?

I'm for gay marriage as I think they ought to have to suffer the same way we straight folks do.
Click to expand...
Yep, if they think marriage is a cup of tea, they will soon experience an awakening.
 
Ethereal said:
I believe state-sanctioned marriages should be abolished all together, but if we're going to have them then gays should be able to get married as well.
Click to expand...
But are you saying, only Gay guys, or just same sex couples? I don't think there is a justification for only gay same sex couples to benefit from marriage. but rather any one that wants to, should be able to.
 
Zyphlin said:
One would have to wonder that, if one also had absolutely no short term memory, didn't read the thread, can't remember what they wrote, or is choosing to play dumb to continue to duck out of actually having a conversation and debating and prefers to just spit out non-stop pathetic attempts at sarcastic one liners.
Click to expand...

Why would one have to wonder that?

Because I didn't.

[/quote]

Sure you did, but using the oldest trick in the book the "I know you are but what am I" instead seems more your style on this subject.
 
Skateguy said:
But are you saying, only Gay guys, or just same sex couples? I don't think there is a justification for only gay same sex couples to benefit from marriage. but rather any one that wants to, should be able to.
Click to expand...

Sure, why not? Government benefits and recognition, in my opinion, ought to be dispersed equally amongst the populace.
 
I believe same sex people be allowed to marry, because it's not the business of the state to decide who should marry or not. However, we shouldn't force priests to marry same-sex couples either.
 
Camlon said:
However, we shouldn't force priests to marry same-sex couples either.
Click to expand...
We have yet to hear any evidence that someone--anyone--wants this.
 
Zyphlin said:
I know you brought it up as a legal construct.

It was just erroneous and wrong as one. Its NOT relevant.

I've never denied that religion is a federally protected class. Polygamists have the right to be married, and marry the person they choose. However, they can't enter into a POLYGAMIST marriage under the law. This is not a bias against a religion, as marriage under the law has nothing to do with religion. This has to do with the structure of the law and the state interest, which there isn't for polygamist marriages.

If one is part of a religion that believes its justified to kill a woman if she is raped they can not go forth and kill a woman and then get away with it because its allowed in their religion...because its not allowed by the LAW. They are not being discriminated against because of their religion, because the law is secular.

Polygamists aren't discriminated against because of their religion, because the law has nothing to do with religion. This is not an analogy to homosexuals, because the law specifically DOES have something to do with the sex of the individual.

The only way religion, and thus religious expression, could be violated is if the religion...which is a private institution...is infringed upon in some form.

Sorry Jerry, you're just showing your ignorance of this subject here.
Click to expand...


Laws forbidding polygamy/polyandry are discriminatory and based in both religious superstition and the lawmakers inability to craft an effective divorce process for multiply owned community property.
 
Zyphlin said:
You can look at my earlier post on this discussing my views in regards to the fact that marriage under the law already discriminates based on the number of people on the low side (IE couples get more benefits than singles), that "amount of people" is not something that would be under the equal protection clause, and that the lack of government interest in providing it compare to the extreme amount of radicalized change that would be needed added to the large amount of quandries without real answers currently that would come about due to it as compared to "any 2 people" type of marriage to see my general views on why it would not work.
Click to expand...

Married couples should not get more "benefits" than singles.

A man earning $100,000 should pay the same tax on that $100,000 regardless of how many wives and children his hauling around as baggage.

He didn't ask anyone else's permission to get married, he shouldn't expect special treatment.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Laws forbidding polygamy/polyandry are discriminatory and based in both religious superstition and the lawmakers inability to craft an effective divorce process for multiply owned community property.
Click to expand...
Actually, polygamy/polyandry are inherently destabilizing in a society with roughly equal numbers of men and women. Marriage has salutary effects on poverty, the emotional and social stability of society, and the creation of families. We have very little to help us organize society around plural marriages and in those places where it's practiced, the situations are unstable.

In actual practice, plural marriages are only sociologically functional among the very wealthy and in societies where the number of men and women is seriously skewed by war, starvation, or other causes.
 
Rassales said:
Actually, polygamy/polyandry are inherently destabilizing in a society with roughly equal numbers of men and women. Marriage has salutary effects on poverty, the emotional and social stability of society, and the creation of families. We have very little to help us organize society around plural marriages and in those places where it's practiced, the situations are unstable.

In actual practice, plural marriages are only sociologically functional among the very wealthy and in societies where the number of men and women is seriously skewed by war, starvation, or other causes.
Click to expand...

That is the first legitimate argument I've actually heard against polygamy/polyandry.
 
Skateguy said:
I brought this up on another thread the other night. It just kind of rolled out in response to a "Gays getting married" thread.--but the more I think about,the more it seems like a legitimate question. I ask why would two people of the same sex, have to be homosexual to get married? --Because once married, they would then be able enjoy the benefits that go along with being married. Such as tax Breaks, special insurance rates, and so on. If Two Homo Men can get Married legally, then why couldn't two straight Men get married also? (Not that I would want to, but just sayin) Just seems to be more discrimination against Straight Guys to me. Male is Male, and Female is Female, regardless of sexual orientation.-So my question is, if made legal, should two people of the same sex be allowed to marry, whether they are Homosexuals or not? ---this could be interesting
Click to expand...

It would be a discrimination against straight guys if the gay ones could get married.
But, for some of the most moronic reasons I've ever heard, they can't.
I agree with you, though. I think it would be funny =P
 
Rassales said:
Actually, polygamy/polyandry are inherently destabilizing in a society with roughly equal numbers of men and women. Marriage has salutary effects on poverty, the emotional and social stability of society, and the creation of families. We have very little to help us organize society around plural marriages and in those places where it's practiced, the situations are unstable.

In actual practice, plural marriages are only sociologically functional among the very wealthy and in societies where the number of men and women is seriously skewed by war, starvation, or other causes.
Click to expand...

So, if the male/female ratio were something like 1:3, or 3:1, 1 male marrying 3 females, or the opposite, would become socially acceptable?
 
The Mark said:
So, if the male/female ratio were something like 1:3, or 3:1, 1 male marrying 3 females, or the opposite, would become socially acceptable?
Click to expand...
If this is a math test, I better take off my shoes.---sometimes I sits and thinks, and sometimes I just sits.
 
Last edited:
Rassales said:
Actually, polygamy/polyandry are inherently destabilizing in a society with roughly equal numbers of men and women. Marriage has salutary effects on poverty, the emotional and social stability of society, and the creation of families. We have very little to help us organize society around plural marriages and in those places where it's practiced, the situations are unstable.

In actual practice, plural marriages are only sociologically functional among the very wealthy and in societies where the number of men and women is seriously skewed by war, starvation, or other causes.
Click to expand...

Good post. I've made this argument before as the basis for demonstrating the using polygamy in the anti-GM debate is nothing but a silly slippery slope and diversion.
 
Skateguy said:
If this is a math test, I better take off my shoes.---sometimes I sits and thinks, and sometimes I just sits.
Click to expand...

No math test.

I was just remembering a sci-fi novel I read, wherein a planet was colonized, but some mutation in the colonists caused a 5:1 ratio between female and male children who survived birth. To sustain a population, the majority of males had to "spread themselves around" more than would be socially acceptable currently here in the USA.

As a situation like that appeared to be what Rassales was suggesting would be needed for laws supporting stable polygamous marriages to be formed, I asked a clarifying question.
 
Rassales said:
Actually, polygamy/polyandry are inherently destabilizing in a society with roughly equal numbers of men and women.
Click to expand...

Possibly. I won't dispute it. That fact in itself is not sufficient to outlaw th practice.

Marriage has salutary effects on poverty, the emotional and social stability of society, and the creation of families. We have very little to help us organize society around plural marriages and in those places where it's practiced, the situations are unstable.

Rassales said:
In actual practice, plural marriages are only sociologically functional among the very wealthy and in societies where the number of men and women is seriously skewed by war, starvation, or other causes.
Click to expand...

Then the people who can afford it should not be denied it.

I'm fair.

I never claimed I've been denied a Gulfstream IV, I just can't afford one.

I'll never claim I've been denied polygamy, if it was legal. My wife would crack my head open.:lol:

Regardless of it's effects on "society", the reality is that who someone marries is not "society's" concern. And nor is how many someone marries "society's" concern, either.

If a man can afford six wives and for some insane reason wants six wives, hell, let him do it, assuming those six woman want him and each other. I say that polygamy and polyandry require the consent of all current spouses to add another.

Oh, and divorce should be so damned difficult that it's almost unheard of, if children are involved.
 
Rassales said:
Actually, polygamy/polyandry are inherently destabilizing in a society with roughly equal numbers of men and women.
Click to expand...

Possibly. I won't dispute it. That fact in itself is not sufficient to outlaw th practice.

Marriage has salutary effects on poverty, the emotional and social stability of society, and the creation of families. We have very little to help us organize society around plural marriages and in those places where it's practiced, the situations are unstable.

Rassales said:
In actual practice, plural marriages are only sociologically functional among the very wealthy and in societies where the number of men and women is seriously skewed by war, starvation, or other causes.
Click to expand...

Then the people who can afford it should not be denied it.

I'm fair.

I never claimed I've been denied a Gulfstream IV, I just can't afford one.

I'll never claim I've been denied polygamy, if it was legal. My wife would crack my head open.:lol:

Regardless of it's effects on "society", the reality is that who someone marries is not "society's" concern. And nor is how many someone marries "society's" concern, either.

If a man can afford six wives and for some insane reason wants six wives, hell, let him do it, assuming those six woman want him and each other. I say that polygamy and polyandry require the consent of all current spouses to add another.

Oh, and divorce should be so damned difficult that it's almost unheard of, if children are involved.
 
The Mark said:
No math test.

I was just remembering a sci-fi novel I read, wherein a planet was colonized, but some mutation in the colonists caused a 5:1 ratio between female and male children who survived birth. To sustain a population, the majority of males had to "spread themselves around" more than would be socially acceptable currently here in the USA.

As a situation like that appeared to be what Rassales was suggesting would be needed for laws supporting stable polygamous marriages to be formed, I asked a clarifying question.
Click to expand...
One good Bull, can service a large herd.
 
Coronado said:
What makes you think married guys get any action?

I'm for gay marriage as I think they ought to have to suffer the same way we straight folks do.
Click to expand...

I was going to post almost this exact thing earlier in the thread, but I'm a chicken and didn't want to rain on the parade. :mrgreen:
 
The Mark said:
So, if the male/female ratio were something like 1:3, or 3:1, 1 male marrying 3 females, or the opposite, would become socially acceptable?
Click to expand...
At such a basic level, and for basic issues, people tend to do what's practical, or even necessary, to sustain the group. Social customs are often shaped by necessity.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
I'll never claim I've been denied polygamy, if it was legal. My wife would crack my head open.:lol:

Regardless of it's effects on "society", the reality is that who someone marries is not "society's" concern. And nor is how many someone marries "society's" concern, either.
Click to expand...
Actually it is. Marriage is always society's concern. It's an institution with rules aimed at making society more stable, not just making couples happy. It serves a function. The question isn't so much whether something should be illegal (it's not, really--you can co-habitate in a conjugal way with anyone you choose), but whether society through its laws should support the institution. Marriage isn't just a legal convenience--if it were that simple and that trivial, people wouldn't get so emotional about it.

There are all sorts of reasons that marriages with more than one person create instability, from both an interpersonal and sociological standpoint. Certainly when the practice is widespread, you eventually end up with a lot of men who cannot find licit sexual partners. Where it is practiced, it's usually done to elevate the status of the person (almost always a man) who takes the multiple partners, so it's inherently disempowering to all the mates and to their sex generally (and they, strangely enough, are almost always women).

When your wife threatens to crack your skull if you take another wife, she's not only defending herself, but all women. If, suddenly, there were 3 women to every one man in your society, that would probably change--fast.
 
Skateguy said:
I brought this up on another thread the other night. It just kind of rolled out in response to a "Gays getting married" thread.--but the more I think about,the more it seems like a legitimate question. I ask why would two people of the same sex, have to be homosexual to get married? --Because once married, they would then be able enjoy the benefits that go along with being married. Such as tax Breaks, special insurance rates, and so on. If Two Homo Men can get Married legally, then why couldn't two straight Men get married also? (Not that I would want to, but just sayin) Just seems to be more discrimination against Straight Guys to me. Male is Male, and Female is Female, regardless of sexual orientation.-So my question is, if made legal, should two people of the same sex be allowed to marry, whether they are Homosexuals or not? ---this could be interesting
Click to expand...
The inherent problem with this poll is the biased language of the poll itself.

Should 5 year olds be allowed to marry or should adults get preferential treatment?

Should people be allowed to marry their dogs or should same species couples receive preferential treatment?

Should a man and his stuffed teddy bear get the same rights as a married couple or should bigotry prevail?

The poll is not worded very fairly.

How about this:

Should marriage be between a man and a woman, or should words not have any meaning (seeing as how to do it otherwise means you get to redefine terms (i.e. marriage) at will)?

Should the government be allowed to redefine any concept or institution it wants to?
If marriage can be between a man and a man (which is a redefinition of the term) or a man and a child, or a man and his cat, then why don't we say up should be down, in should be out, and hot should be cold if it suits our fancy.

We'll redefine freedom if we choose. We'll redefine fidelity.

We'll make concepts and ideals relative to our desires and our convenience.

Look, if two men want to live together and sleep together then let them. But lets not call that a marriage any more than we should call a pig a poodle.
 
Last edited:
Matt633 said:
The inherent problem with this poll is the biased language of the poll itself.

Should 5 year olds be allowed to marry or should adults get preferential treatment?

Should people be allowed to marry their dogs or should same species couples receive preferential treatment?

Should a man and his stuffed teddy bear get the same rights as a married couple or should bigotry prevail?

The poll is not worded very fairly.

How about this:

Should marriage be between a man and a woman, or should words not have any meaning (seeing as how to do it otherwise means you get to redefine terms (i.e. marriage) at will)?

Should the government be allowed to redefine any concept or institution it wants to?
If marriage can be between a man and a man (which is a redefinition of the term) or a man and a child, or a man and his cat, then why don't we say up should be down, in should be out, and hot should be cold if it suits our fancy.
Click to expand...
None of the questions you asked are what is being proposed and never will be; at least not in any serious manner like the same-sex marriage debate. The poll didn't state it, but it should be pretty obvious to anyone reading the OP that he was talking about marriage between consenting adults. Not children; not animals; not inanimate objects; just grown up people with a wish to commit to their significant other and to receive any state benefits associated to marriage. Your attempt to widen the discussion to include concepts that would be seen as perverse or abhorrent to the vast majority of people is as transparent as it is ignorant.

Look, if two men want to live together and sleep together then let them. But lets not call that a marriage any more than we should call a pig a poodle.
Click to expand...
This has already been covered extensively in this thread – I suggest you try reading it. It's not about simply being allowed to use the term; it's about getting all the benefits that are afforded to married couples, like being trusted to make decisions on each others' behalves in critical situations.
 
Antagony said:
This has already been covered extensively in this thread – I suggest you try reading it. It's not about simply being allowed to use the term; it's about getting all the benefits that are afforded to married couples, like being trusted to make decisions on each others' behalves in critical situations.
Click to expand...

No it is not. If this were the case civil unions with all the benefits of marraige would be acceptable.

This is about legitimizing the gay lifestyle, period.

In CA for example. Gay couples get all the benefits of married couples. Yet that was not good enough. Now we have the whole prop 8 fight etc.

So I don't see this as being about benefits or equal treatment under the law.

I don't care if it gets legalized or not to be honest. It will not affect me one way or the other, but let's be honest about the reasons behind the push.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom