• 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
The purpose of marriage has changed.

Clearly it hasn't.

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.

Ahh yes, well you're asking about me specifically so let's be clear up front that I have no empirical data establishing myself or my family as a representative sample of the greater population. You are asking for anecdote, which I'm happy to give, but let's keep in mind that this is just anecdote.

My parents divorced when I was about 7. My father remarried for the expressed purpose of reforming the family (it had the opposite effect, in practice). My mother never re-married because she has always placed her personal freedom above anything which made her feel tied down. The only exception to that was her job, N.U.M.M.I....which thanks to Obama will be closing forever in March (hows that unemployment rate doing?)...hopefully I can convince her to move to SD, but I digress.

Of the grandparent's I'm familiar with: my mother's parents divorced when my mother was a teen. My grandfather had a gambling habit which my grandmother finally couldn't live with any longer. Their divorce was sad but civil. My grandfather remand very much active in the family, tending the family home even though he had moved out with the divorce, being present for family events, and it was easy to see that my grandparents still had affection for each other.

At the moment of his death he was surrounded by his children holding his hand, laying on bed he shared with his wife, in the family home everyone grew up in. I'm sure my grandmother would have been there were it not for very advanced alzheimers...frankly the doctors don't know how she's still alive.
 
Last edited:
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.

Those other couples have raised the divorce rate to 50%.

"Gays will also have a 50% divorce rate" is not a supporting argument to folks like myself who don't want a 50% divorce rate to begin with.

The divorce rate is the problem, gay marriage needs to show how it's part of the solution.

When, and I do argue that it's a matter of "when" and not "if", we are having this debate over polygamy, I will hold them to the same standard.
 
Last edited:
The variations have changed, not the purpose. Everywhere you go on Earth, marriage is about socializing children. This applies to each of your examples.

Yeah, except when it's not.
 
Where are you getting this "purpose of marriage" argument?

Half.com / Books / Sociology Now

Chapter 2.

You could Google "cultural universal".

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.

Allow me to link the post I chimed in with this evening....

So I'm attending the beginning of a 100 level sociology class, and the instructor who teaches this subject at the 400 level, reaches the topic of cultural universal.

To periphrasis, he tells us that the reason all societies have "marriage" is to acknowledge a pair bond, to let everyone know that a couple has joined their lives and operate by special rules, and that everyone should honor this union because now the couple's main function is to socialize children. He then gave a few examples of how marriage serves this same function in very different cultures around the globe before moving on to other elements every society has, like funerals.


So before anyone tries to play the religion card, this is sociology, a science, not a religion, not my subjective personal opinion on morality......science and cultural universal.


****
Talk about validation.

Marriage is about raising children, not in supporting just whatever sort of relationship you feel like. If you have no intention of raising children, you therefore have no business getting married.

If gay 'marriage is principally about socializing children, then I'm for gay marriage. If gay marriage is principally about anything other than socializing children, such as "equality" or "rights" or some other bull**** nonsense, then I'm against it.

*Note: I would not then be against gays haveing relationships, living together and whatnot. I would then be against gays having access to marriage, even civil unions.
 
Those other couples have raised the divorce rate to 50%.

Are you serious? I want to see your evidence to support such a ludicrous statement.

What raised the divorce rate was no fault divorce and women leaving home to work. That is a sociological fact that nobody even disputes. To hear someone arguing that elderly couples and childless couples marrying had anything to do with increasing the divorce rate is insane.
 
Half.com / Books / Sociology Now

Chapter 2.

You could Google "cultural universal".

First off, there is a huge difference between raising children and socializing children. Only parents and guardians raise children, but everyone in a community plays a part in socializing children.

The purpose of all society, not just marriage, is to socialize children. If society didn't socialize children, then there would be no society. Marriage has long served as an institution for which children aspire. That is one major way in which marriage socializes children. But that is an extraordinary argument for same sex marriage. Believe it or not, there are gay children, and they want to aspire to an institution. Aspiring to second class civil unions and domestic partnerships is not the same for them as aspiring to same sex marriage. Seeing same sex couples in a committed, marital relationships would do much to socialize gay kids away from promiscuity and towards committed, long term relationships that would benefit them and society.
 
Last edited:
Those other couples have raised the divorce rate to 50%.

"Gays will also have a 50% divorce rate" is not a supporting argument to folks like myself who don't want a 50% divorce rate to begin with.

The divorce rate is the problem, gay marriage needs to show how it's part of the solution.

When, and I do argue that it's a matter of "when" and not "if", we are having this debate over polygamy, I will hold them to the same standard.

I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that childless couples are the reason for the high divorce rate? How do you figure that?
 
WTF is up with the poll results? Polls here never get 180 votes, not to mention 120 anti-gay marriage votes. Plus the numbers are unlikely well-rounded.

With all respect to CC I believe some of our left wing friends are stuffing the ballots...........

I checked. Actually, it's conservatives stuffing the ballot box. 102 "guests' voted for the "NO" vote, same choice made by NP and several other conservatives. There are only 19 "legitimate" no votes, where as there are 52 "legitimate" yes votes.

Since the "No" vote is the one favored by the conservatives, I must conclude that some conservatives have attempted to skew this poll.

Now, I'm not sure if there is anyone on this forum responsible for this but if so, what did you prove? That you can mess with the poll to attempt to get folks to believe that your position is in the majority here at DP? Well guess what... YOU FAILED. Just made your position look worse and gave it a pathetic, cheating edge.

This has been a public service announcement from your neighborhood Resident Despot. :2razz:
 
I checked. Actually, it's conservatives stuffing the ballot box. 102 "guests' voted for the "NO" vote, same choice made by NP and several other conservatives. There are only 19 "legitimate" no votes, where as there are 52 "legitimate" yes votes.

Since the "No" vote is the one favored by the conservatives, I must conclude that some conservatives have attempted to skew this poll.

Now, I'm not sure if there is anyone on this forum responsible for this but if so, what did you prove? That you can mess with the poll to attempt to get folks to believe that your position is in the majority here at DP? Well guess what... YOU FAILED. Just made your position look worse and gave it a pathetic, cheating edge.

This has been a public service announcement from your neighborhood Resident Despot. :2razz:

I wasn't aware guests were allowed to vote in polls. Are you certain they were not "legitimate guests"?
 
I checked. Actually, it's conservatives stuffing the ballot box. 102 "guests' voted for the "NO" vote, same choice made by NP and several other conservatives. There are only 19 "legitimate" no votes, where as there are 52 "legitimate" yes votes.

Since the "No" vote is the one favored by the conservatives, I must conclude that some conservatives have attempted to skew this poll.

Now, I'm not sure if there is anyone on this forum responsible for this but if so, what did you prove? That you can mess with the poll to attempt to get folks to believe that your position is in the majority here at DP? Well guess what... YOU FAILED. Just made your position look worse and gave it a pathetic, cheating edge.

This has been a public service announcement from your neighborhood Resident Despot. :2razz:

Unless it is a liberal trying to make conservatives look bad. This would not be the first time.
 
I wasn't aware guests were allowed to vote in polls. Are you certain they were not "legitimate guests"?

102?!!! I don't think so. There may have been some legitimate... my guess is no more than a dozen. The number is just too skewed for it to be legitimate.

Oh, and guests are allowed to vote in polls in the Polls Forum only.
 
Last edited:
Unless it is a liberal trying to make conservatives look bad. This would not be the first time.

Doubt it. Not this poll. Another poll that was perhaps more clear, maybe. This seems like a ballot box stuff job.
 
Doubt it. Not this poll. Another poll that was perhaps more clear, maybe. This seems like a ballot box stuff job.

It's the way the question is phrased that makes it possible.

"No--some people should recieve preferential treatment"

Either way we know someone is being a jerk.
 
Last edited:
It's the way the question is phrased that makes it possible.

"No--some people should recieve preferential treatment"

Either way we know someone is being a jerk.

Someone is. I don't believe in coincidences. Folks started discussing the poll numbers, questioning the veracity of them. I checked, found them to be pretty legitimate. This legitimacy was questioned and, lo and behold, nearly 100 "guests" voted for "NO". Someone wanted to mess with the numbers. The current "DP member" poll numbers are vastly different than what is reflected in the "official" vote. Yes has 52; No has 19... at least that's what I remember.

Be aware. When someone starts discussing the poll numbers, one can pretty much guarantee that someone will then mess with them to attempt to "prove" their point.

It's all irrelevant though. Regardless of which side would win, it would still be an appeal to populum logical fallacy to use the number as evidence that you are correct.
 
Last edited:
Yep... all it took was one Jerry-built comment and the thread went berserk.

Because the principals of what marraige is based on in society has nothing to do with accepting gay marraige. Dissecting Christian principles has so much more to do with it. :doh
 
I guess that is to complicated for you?
Your habit of sneeringly belittling peoples' knowledge and insulting their intelligence at every opportunity is really very tiresome. It is also richly ironic, as you don't come across as particularly clever yourself. :roll:


Welcome to the world of Catholicism.
It may well be my memory that's faulty--it was well over 30 since I last took bible studies seriously--but I don't remember the Jesus' sacrifice ever being referred to as "a covenant" in my Catholic schooling. And I was sent to Catholic junior and high schools (where religious education was extensive and compulsory), attended Sunday school, sang in the church choir and attended mass at least twice a week. IIRC, the Catechism was the mainstay of everything we were taught about Christianity back in my day.
 
Your habit of sneeringly belittling peoples' knowledge and insulting their intelligence at every opportunity is really very tiresome. It is also richly ironic, as you don't come across as particularly clever yourself. :roll:

This had nothing to do with it. The information was right in front of you and you still missed it. As for the rest, so what?

This has nothing to with trying to be clever. It has to do with non Christians trying to tell Christan's what the Bible means or how to interpret it. I mean what do those of us who actually studied it (and still do) know, I mean really. :roll:

It may well be my memory that's faulty--it was well over 30 since I last took bible studies seriously--but I don't remember the Jesus' sacrifice ever being referred to as "a covenant" in my Catholic schooling. And I was sent to Catholic junior and high schools (where religious education was extensive and compulsory), attended Sunday school, sang in the church choir and attended mass at least twice a week. IIRC, the Catechism was the mainstay of everything we were taught about Christianity back in my day.

It is not your memory, I was also raised a Catholic. They don't really teach you about the Bible, they teach you about being Catholic.

Not that this makes them any less Christian, but they are more concerned with the earthly traditions they follow than biblical precedent.
 
Last edited:
Clearly it hasn't.

Simply denying the obvious truth doesn't change it.

It's obvious that many, many people get married these days with no intent, or ability, to have children. They are older people - divorced or widowed. You can deny it all you want, but they are all around you.

Ahh yes, well you're asking about me specifically so let's be clear up front that I have no empirical data establishing myself or my family as a representative sample of the greater population. You are asking for anecdote, which I'm happy to give, but let's keep in mind that this is just anecdote.

Fair enough.

My parents divorced when I was about 7. My father remarried for the expressed purpose of reforming the family (it had the opposite effect, in practice). My mother never re-married because she has always placed her personal freedom above anything which made her feel tied down. The only exception to that was her job, N.U.M.M.I....which thanks to Obama will be closing forever in March (hows that unemployment rate doing?)...hopefully I can convince her to move to SD, but I digress.

I presume your mother is beyond child-bearing years, or at least has no intention to have children. So you would oppose her getting married, and would support a law making it illegal for her to do so. Right?

Of the grandparent's I'm familiar with: my mother's parents divorced when my mother was a teen. My grandfather had a gambling habit which my grandmother finally couldn't live with any longer. Their divorce was sad but civil. My grandfather remand very much active in the family, tending the family home even though he had moved out with the divorce, being present for family events, and it was easy to see that my grandparents still had affection for each other.

At the moment of his death he was surrounded by his children holding his hand, laying on bed he shared with his wife, in the family home everyone grew up in. I'm sure my grandmother would have been there were it not for very advanced alzheimers...frankly the doctors don't know how she's still alive.

My father died of cancer in 2003, with my mom tending to him at home. She's post-menopausal and all her kids are grown and moved out.

Yet she has the legal right to remarry. She may do so, like many thousands of other people in her situation. Yet you claim that marriage is still only about children, and you want to enforce your claim by making it illegal for her to get married again.
 
I checked. Actually, it's conservatives stuffing the ballot box. 102 "guests' voted for the "NO" vote, same choice made by NP and several other conservatives. There are only 19 "legitimate" no votes, where as there are 52 "legitimate" yes votes.

Since the "No" vote is the one favored by the conservatives, I must conclude that some conservatives have attempted to skew this poll.

Now, I'm not sure if there is anyone on this forum responsible for this but if so, what did you prove? That you can mess with the poll to attempt to get folks to believe that your position is in the majority here at DP? Well guess what... YOU FAILED. Just made your position look worse and gave it a pathetic, cheating edge.

This has been a public service announcement from your neighborhood Resident Despot. :2razz:

Actually Navy was correct, his left-wing, big-governemnt friends were stuffing the ballot.

He just didn't realize he was finally, and inadvertently, admitting his left-wing nature. :lol::rofl
 
Cheatin will make you grow hair on your palms, don't forget.


Y'know, you would be annoying as hail, if you weren't so darn funny. :mrgreen:
 
Back
Top Bottom