• 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
peepnklown said:
The problem is that the state should not be in the business of granting us permission to enter into a union.
Click to expand...

That's a whole other topic, though.

Even in cultures who don't have "states", such as tribes, "marriage" is still about raising children.
 
Last edited:
peepnklown said:
The problem is that the state should not be in the business of granting us permission to enter into a union.
Click to expand...

Could not agree more.

I have said it before and I will say it again. Take away all the little perks people get for being married and watch this issue go away overnight.
 
Jerry said:
You keep citing people who have no business getting married as though their abuse of the system simultaneously justifies that same abuse.

According to you, if you can abuse it, it is therefore ok to abuse it. Do you apply this attitude to women also? If you can rape her it is therefore ok to rape her? Everyone else is raping her, so why not, right?
Click to expand...

LMFAO

There's no requirement for children in the legal marriage contract that couples sign. Therefore, there is no 'abuse' of said contract by not having children.
 
Jerry said:
I don't need to convince anyone, globally they've been doing it since Man has had civilization.
Click to expand...

Man's not doing it now. It's too late. Thousands and thousands of married couples are not having children. No state law requires them to either. Saying that marriage is about children because it's always been that way is bogus, because it's not that way.
 
misterman said:
I did not make a false statement.

The law and the facts are both on my side.
Click to expand...

Do I have to repost the whole exchange again?

Please, you made a false statement. As I said even if I am the only one outside of Jerry who would "go for it" your statement is false, period.

Your spin will not fly in the face of the truth.
 
Last edited:
rivrrat said:
LMFAO

There's no requirement for children in the legal marriage contract that couples sign. Therefore, there is no 'abuse' of said contract by not having children.
Click to expand...

We don't need to codify something we as a species have been observing since forever.
 
rivrrat said:
LMFAO

There's no requirement for children in the legal marriage contract that couples sign. Therefore, there is no 'abuse' of said contract by not having children.
Click to expand...

I've seen alot of people pull this "marriage is for children" crap before. Most of them simply fold and slink away when reminded that their postmenopausal grandma got remarried after grandpa died or whatever. I give Jerry credit for sticking with the logical conclusion of his argument, no matter how extreme and hopeless. He's alot of things, but he's no hypocrite.
 
Jerry said:
We don't need to codify something we as a species have been observing since forever.
Click to expand...

So you agree that the state should stop sanctioning marriage altogether.
 
Blackdog said:
Do I have to repost the whole exchange again?

Please, you made a false statement. As I said even if I am the only one outside of Jerry who would "go for it" your statement is false, period.

Your spin will not fly in the face of the truth.
Click to expand...

Yes, you need to post it again. You call me a liar, you're damn right you need to. There seems to be some confusion here, and you need to clear it up.
 
misterman said:
I've seen alot of people pull this "marriage is for children" crap before. Most of them simply fold and slink away when reminded that their postmenopausal grandma got remarried after grandpa died or whatever. I give Jerry credit for sticking with the logical conclusion of his argument, no matter how extreme and hopeless. He's alot of things, but he's no hypocrite.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that the reason I chimed back into this thread is because my instructor gave that information in the coarse of a science class. If it's an opinion, it's not unique to me. If it's an opinion then it's an opinion that was established by the species as a whole mellenia before you and I were born.
 
rivrrat said:
And those marriages included same-sex unions as well. ;)
Click to expand...

I support same-sex marriage when same-sex marriage is about the raising of children. At that point "same-sex" becomes a mere variation no different than variations found in other cultures.
 
Jerry said:
We don't need to codify something we as a species have been observing since forever.
Click to expand...

LOL Umm...yes, we do. Since marriage has changed drastically over the years and throughout different civilizations. Men married children. Men bought and paid for their wives. Same sex marriages were quite common in several cultures. Polygamy was rampant.

Obviously, just because something was done centuries ago, we DO need to clarify what we wish to allow *today*.
 
Jerry said:
Keep in mind that the reason I chimed back into this thread is because my instructor gave that information in the coarse of a science class. If it's an opinion, it's not unique to me. If it's an opinion then it's an opinion that was established by the species as a whole mellenia before you and I were born.
Click to expand...

It's an opinion about the ORIGIN of marriage. But we have not, and are not obligated to, follow that tradition. We can do whatever we want. We can decide that marriage is for whatever purpose we want it to be. The law doesn't define it as "only for children" now, and many many couples don't practice it that way either. So it's already not about children only.

Things change.
 
Jerry said:
I support same-sex marriage when same-sex marriage is about the raising of children. At that point "same-sex" becomes a mere variation no different than variations found in other cultures.
Click to expand...

Again, I do give you credit for consistency at least.
 
rivrrat said:
LOL Umm...yes, we do. Since marriage has changed drastically over the years and throughout different civilizations. Men married children. Men bought and paid for their wives. Same sex marriages were quite common in several cultures. Polygamy was rampant.

Obviously, just because something was done centuries ago, we DO need to clarify what we wish to allow *today*.
Click to expand...

The variations have changed, not the purpose. Everywhere you go on Earth, marriage is about socializing children. This applies to each of your examples.
 
There is just something I find very interesting....

I could have a loveless, childless relationship with someone of the opposite sex, while cheating on the side, and providing no real benefit to society and that would be a worthy enough of marriage by the traditional marriage people's standards simply because I would be male and she would be female.

However, if I formed a loving, stable relationship with another male, adopted and provided a stable home for children, and benefited society in doing so, that would be considered unworthy of marriage by traditional marriage people's standards simply because I would be male and he would be male.

And people are surprised when the Larry Craigs and Mark Folelys come out of the woodwork?

I can't imagine how traditional marriage people deal with the cognitive dissonance they must encounter everyday in their thinking.
 
misterman said:
It's an opinion about the ORIGIN of marriage. But we have not, and are not obligated to, follow that tradition. We can do whatever we want. We can decide that marriage is for whatever purpose we want it to be. The law doesn't define it as "only for children" now, and many many couples don't practice it that way either. So it's already not about children only.

Things change.
Click to expand...

If the purpose of marriage were going to change, it would have.

It hasn't, though. The purpose has remained the same even when the structure of marriage has changed drastically. Just as skin tone and pigmentation can very from culture to culture, skin still serves the same purpose every human you look at.

It is because the purpose of marriage is the same which makes it an element of cultural universal.
 
CriticalThought said:
There is just something I find very interesting....

I could have a loveless, childless relationship with someone of the opposite sex, while cheating on the side, and providing no real benefit to society and that would be a worthy enough of marriage by the traditional marriage people's standards simply because I would be male and she would be female.

However, if I formed a loving, stable relationship with another male, adopted and provided a stable home for children, and benefited society in doing so, that would be considered unworthy of marriage by traditional marriage people's standards simply because I would be male and he would be male.

And people are surprised when the Larry Craigs and Mark Folelys come out of the woodwork?

I can't imagine how traditional marriage people deal with the cognitive dissonance they must encounter everyday in their thinking.
Click to expand...

I think those who come to forums such as this do so to work out said cognitive dissonance.

I know I did.
 
Jerry said:
The variations have changed, not the purpose. Everywhere you go on Earth, marriage is about socializing children. This applies to each of your examples.
Click to expand...

No, it's not. Thousands of people get married every year just in the U.S. with absolutely no intention, or ability, to have children.

If you want to call that a "variation" fine. Those are still legally valid, legitimate marriages.

Many people choose to marry for purposes other than children. I'd say virtually all support the right to do that. So saying "marriage is only for children" simply isn't true today. You can say "marriage ought to be only for children" if you like.
 
misterman said:
No, it's not. Thousands of people get married every year just in the U.S. with absolutely no intention, or ability, to have children.

If you want to call that a "variation" fine. Those are still legally valid, legitimate marriages.

Many people choose to marry for purposes other than children. I'd say virtually all support the right to do that. So saying "marriage is only for children" simply isn't true today. You can say "marriage ought to be only for children" if you like.
Click to expand...
There has always been the counter-culture element, yet they haven't changed the purpose of marriage either.
 
Jerry said:
There has always been the counter-culture element, yet they haven't changed the purpose of marriage either.
Click to expand...

The purpose of marriage has changed. It wasn't "counter-culture" people either. It was mostly older people remarrying after their spouses died.

You didn't answer my question about whether you have parents or grandparents who might remarry. Perhaps some already have. Be sure to condemn their abuse of marriage.
 
Jerry said:
There has always been the counter-culture element, yet they haven't changed the purpose of marriage either.
Click to expand...

Where are you getting this "purpose of marriage" argument? Even the Bible doesn't say that the purpose of marriage is children. Even history or tradition doesn't say the sole purpose of marriage is children because marriage was primarily economic until it was accepted as a spiritual institution.

Frankly, the whole "marriage is only about children" argument is entirely your opinion.
 
Jerry said:
There has always been the counter-culture element, yet they haven't changed the purpose of marriage either.
Click to expand...

Does it really matter all that much what the fundamental purpose of marriage really is in the gay marriage debate? When all is said and done, gay marriage will not affect that fundamental purpose any more than childless couples or older couples have ever done.

What does is matter if a minority of people who get married will never have children? It doesn't seem to have made any difference so far.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom