• 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!

Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

  • No

    Votes: 99 79.2%
  • Yes, explain

    Votes: 26 20.8%

  • Total voters
    125
Status
Not open for further replies.
The OP seems to assume that allowing gay marriage is the default, which I don't understand. We don't allow it now. We've never allowed it in the past. Marriage has, until very recently, been defined as an entirely heterosexual institution. Logically, the burden of proof should fall on those who are lobbying to allow gay marriage, because they are the people arguing for a change. And as much as I am in favor of gay marriage, I see very few people actually making arguments for why it should be allowed--how it would benefit society if it were allowed, how allowing gay marriage would bolster and promote the institution of marriage. Certainly, such arguments would be more compelling than empty appeals to "equal rights" and accusations of bigotry.

These have been argued already, and overlooked.

Civil marriage (which is what we are discussing), is a social contract between two people that the government endorses for its own benefits. Some of these benefits include, but are not limited to, improving the odds that children will be raised by at least two people, most likely their mom and dad, helps to provide stability, gives the government someone to essentially "bill" for any debts/social obligations that a person has/leaves behind when they die (especially true when there are no blood relatives for the person), and it keeps track of who is actually married, to help to protect one party from getting cheated. There most likely are more.

From the way that the government treats heterosexual marriages, it is obvious that it is not necessary that all or even most need to apply to all marriages. Some of these same benefits could be gained from having homosexual marriages. That is hard to argue. They should not have to prove "extra" benefits that would come from their marriages, but some are even having to do that. For example, one of the questions the Prop. 8 judge gave to the pro-gay marriage lawyers is to "Is there proof that giving homosexuals the right to marry will reduce discrimination against them?".

Not evey heterosexual couple is even able by law to have children, so the argument that heterosexual marriage's main purpose is procreation is completely down the toilet. There are at least a couple of states where first cousins can marry only if at least one of them is medically or naturally sterile.
 
(I know that all of you against gay marriage hate this reference, but too bad) Again, much of the country was against interracial marriages as well. Not all, but many believed it was a sin against God to marry outside your race (this was true, despite the whole white supremacy thing, even today some feel this way, especially in the South). They had state constitutional amendments to limit marriage to one man and one woman of the same race. The arguments were very much the same. So was the SCOTUS right in their ruling that interracial marriage is a right, even if it went against a what the majority believed?

And I know this will bring the whole race is not the same as sexuality argument, but I contend you are wrong. If you put any other trait in their, including religion, the argument would still be sound. And religion is definitely more of a choice than sexuality. Even if you put some other feature up there with a caveat that said that artificial change is acceptable, the same outcome would be achieved. If the law said that blondes could only marry other blondes, but having your hair dyed blonde is acceptable to achieve this marriage, then would the law really be discriminating? Is it right?

You can contend all day and it will not change the fact that it is not race and is completely unrelated.
 
You can contend all day and it will not change the fact that it is not race and is completely unrelated.

In one case race was discriminated against in the other case gender is being discriminated aggainst hence the relationship btwn the two.
 
You can contend all day and it will not change the fact that it is not race and is completely unrelated.

The only reason you and most on your side see it as unrelated is because you see race as okay to be protected from discriminated, but sexuality you don't. Because it really doesn't matter what the trait is that people are discriminating against, or whether it is a choice or not, we should still be protecting people's rights.

There are so many similarities in the arguments against interracial marriage and same sex marriage, you would have to be completely illiterate not to see them, whether you acknowledge them or not.

Those against interracial marriage said, "It will destroy the sanctity of normal marriage."
Those against interracial marriage said, "Everyone still has all the same rights to marriage. Anybody can marry anybody else of the same race."
Those against interracial marriage said, "Marriage has always been between people of the same race."
Those against interracial marriage said, "It is a sin. We can't condone something that we consider a sin."

All these arguments sound very familiar to me. They all seem to be almost the exact arguments coming from those against same-sex marriage. And I have actually heard these arguments in my lifetime against interracial couples. There are still people today, who find interracial couples and mixing the races in general an abomination and/or a sin. And not all the people who do find it wrong are white.

But it comes down to the government looking at the restrictions placed on civil marriage and asking why they are there, not just accepting it's how it's always been and leave them that way. If the restrictions have good sound reasons for why they are there, i.e. they are in place to protect someone, not a concept, then they should stay. But if the restrictions are there simply to protect tradition or regulate morality, then those restrictions should be taken out, just like those anti-miscegenation laws and sodomy laws.
 
In one case race was discriminated against in the other case gender is being discriminated aggainst hence the relationship btwn the two.

Sexual preference is not race.

Same goes for post above.

They are not the same and it is looking like scientifically speaking ain't going to change.
 
Last edited:
Sexual preference is not race.

Same goes for post above.

They are not the same and it is looking like scientifically speaking ain't going to change.

Race is not the only thing protected against discrimination. You seem to think it is. Religion is also protected against discrimination. And religion is a choice. It most certainly has nothing to do with genetics, not that can be proven anyway.
 
Race is not the only thing protected against discrimination. You seem to think it is. Religion is also protected against discrimination. And religion is a choice. It most certainly has nothing to do with genetics, not that can be proven anyway.

Well there's no proof that says sexuality is a choice, most assertions in this subject are based on lack of evidence.

Like the Big Bang; there's nothing that proves it, there for creationists and the like argue that it cannot be true simply because there's no evidence. But anyway, that's not the discussion.
 
Last edited:
Well there's not proof that says sexuality is a choice

I agree. I just don't think it matters if it is or not. A person's sexuality does not harm anyone else. So why should it matter if it is a choice?

I'll reference another question (paraphrased) that Judge Walker (Prop. 8 judge) asked, "If it is proven that male sexuality can't change, but female sexuality can, would it make a difference in the discrimination/marriage laws with concern to male and female sexuality?".
 
Last edited:
so then whats the argument then? :D Im lost
Government pokes around but people dont and even the ones that "try" are still wrong and its still none of their business
It’s the government poking around that I do not like.
The argument was that your statement of such things not happening was incorrect because of this.

Which you apparently admit here.

Im missing what the debate is about and how any of this has to do with the OP
You really are fixated on the OP, aren’t you…

This has nothing to do with the OP directly, it was only in response to statements made.

bottom line is your marriage is still none of my business, you seem to agree so I’m lost to how anything else is relevant?
Your marriage is none of my business, nor should it be anyone else’s, including the government’s.

Why not? That's exactly what you are doing. You want the law to reflect your views and force your views on others. You try to dress it up as something else, pretending that your moral values-- your opinions-- are self-evident facts that everyone else should automatically accept. Unlike others who have given good reasons, reasons that appeal to others' consciences, why gay marriage should be allowed, you've done nothing but stamp your foot and accuse everyone who disagrees with you of shoving their values down everyone else's throat-- oblivious to the fact that you are doing the exact same thing and less politely to boot.
I’ve gotta say, Korimyr…While I may not always agree with you, your statements still make me think.
 
And that is where your problem lies. Please point out where I said this?

Here is the where I got that idea:

As for the bolded part, if you use your morals as a basis for law, and your morals come from your religion then yes you are using your religion as the basis for laws. You can't spin your way out of that one.

Oh I see. So if peoples morals are based in nothing it's OK. If peoples morals are based on religion, they should not be allowed to vote etc. Pot, meet kettle.

Hows that for spin?

The "Pot, meet kettle." part infers that your example was talking about her.

In fact her point must have really stung because you didn't even address it. You have told us that it would be a sin to support secular gay marriage. Nowhere in the Bible will you find that government can't offer secular marriage.

Does God honor marriages that happen under one of his competitor's names?

An incorrect conclusion can be drawn from logic, but you knew this.

No, incorrect conclusions come from logic fallacies. Appeal to popularity is a logic fallacy.

No one can say for certain but it is thought that it was to keep the tribes of Israel separate from the pagan neighbors who dressed in garish multi fabric clothing. For the Israelites modesty was a big deal.

For the Jewish people they have a name for it, I don't remember what it was. It means something literally like "we have no idea, but it is the law." It does have a long explanation, but you can look up the Jewish interpretation yourself.

Yeah, I can't remember the saying either, but I know what you are talking about.

In Christianity it's basically, "We are not to question God." It's considered blasphemy.
 
Gender is not being discriminated against. Homosexual marriage is illegal regardless of gender of the participants.
 
Gender is not being discriminated against. Homosexual marriage is illegal regardless of gender of the participants.

The discrimination is in the sexuality of the couple. Most evidence points to a person's sexuality being beyond a conscience choice. Not that it really should matter, because as I've stated before, we protect people from religious discrimination.
 
The discrimination is in the sexuality of the couple. Most evidence points to a person's sexuality being beyond a conscience choice. Not that it really should matter, because as I've stated before, we protect people from religious discrimination.

i was answering an earlier post stating that the opposition to gay marriage was gender bias. It's not. It is not, however, just the religious who are against gay marriage and that means it's not religious discrimination either. The majority of American society is opposed to gay marriage as evidenced by the overwhealming failure of legislation allowing gay marriage in many states.
 
i was answering an earlier post stating that the opposition to gay marriage was gender bias. It's not. It is not, however, just the religious who are against gay marriage and that means it's not religious discrimination either. The majority of American society is opposed to gay marriage as evidenced by the overwhealming failure of legislation allowing gay marriage in many states.

I think you're missing the point. The main argument against homosexuality is that it is not a genetic trait or that it is a choice, and therefore, it cannot be considered to have the same discrimination protection as race. This is the big argument when anyone on my side brings up interracial marriage. And I pointed out that the logic is wrong when saying that only things that aren't a person's choice are protected against discrimination. A person's religion is protected against discriminination and it is definitely a choice.

Also, most of the opposition is in fact due to religion. There are a lot of religious people in this country. However, most polls show that there is not a large gap in the difference of those who support gay marriage and those who don't, especially if you were to factor in those willing to give them the same rights, while calling it something else. The general gap between pro-gm and anti-gm is within 10%, or about 54% against, 46% for, and about a 2% don't care/don't know/undecided. The support for gay marriage is actually growing.
 
I've more or less followed this thread from the beginning, and...

It seems the following is the case:

Only a few people directly oppose gay marriage being allowed, at least outside those who reject it on religious grounds.
Not to dismiss the opinions of those religious views, but as such a stance cannot be reasoned against, there's not much point in trying

What a good portion of people seem to have disagreements about is the whole framework of marriage as it currently stands, what changes they would prefer, and how that all fits into the gay marriage discussion.

This, I think is where much of the actual discussion has taken place so far.

So, I thought it might be interesting to request that people post their ideas as to how the whole thing fits together in their mind.
 
Gender is not being discriminated against. Homosexual marriage is illegal regardless of gender of the participants.

Homosexual marriage is not illegal what is illegal in some states is for the state to recognize it. I wonder what the penalty is if such a state would recognize a homosexual marriage?
 
These have been argued already, and overlooked.

I believe that's because all of the attention on this issue is focused in the wrong places. Everyone fixates on the issue of "equal rights" or "sinful behavior" and ignores arguments that do not address one or the other. It seems as though noone is willing to consider the effects of either policy.

Civil marriage (which is what we are discussing), is a social contract between two people that the government endorses for its own benefits.

I wouldn't be so quick to separate civil marriage from religious marriage. In the vast majority of cases the two coincide-- and when they do not it is almost exclusively because either the Church or the State is unwilling to recognize the marriage. They both refer to the same institution for the same purposes, and people who have a strong opinion about either civil marriage or religious marriage typically believe that they should follow the same rules. Those who support gay civil marriage more frequently than not belong to churches that allow gay religious marriage, and people who oppose gay civil marriage typically belong to churches that prohibit gay religious marriages. In both cases, their views on civil marriage are, at least in part, driven by their views on religious marriage.

From the way that the government treats heterosexual marriages, it is obvious that it is not necessary that all or even most need to apply to all marriages. Some of these same benefits could be gained from having homosexual marriages.

Indeed. I'd argue that all of these benefits, in fact, could be gained from homosexual marriages, hence my support for them.

Not evey heterosexual couple is even able by law to have children, so the argument that heterosexual marriage's main purpose is procreation is completely down the toilet. There are at least a couple of states where first cousins can marry only if at least one of them is medically or naturally sterile.

That's a silly restriction; the risk of birth defects between first cousins is barely higher than between strangers, and far smaller than the risk of birth defects in women over 40. The reason not to allow first cousins to marry-- and I am adamantly opposed to it-- is that one of marriage's primary functions is creating natural alliances between families. How can that occur if only one family is involved in a marriage?
 
Gender is not being discriminated against. Homosexual marriage is illegal regardless of gender of the participants.

It might be illegal, but just as women and blacks used to be discriminated against, it isn't right and will eventually be made legal since it is an illegal law.
 
The discrimination is in the sexuality of the couple. Most evidence points to a person's sexuality being beyond a conscience choice. Not that it really should matter, because as I've stated before, we protect people from religious discrimination.

That's simply not true. Some studies indicate that homosexuality may not be a concscious choice. There has been no physiological evidence to support that.

As I have stated before, it is not only the religious who oppose it.
 
It might be illegal, but just as women and blacks used to be discriminated against, it isn't right and will eventually be made legal since it is an illegal law.

It's the law of Americans put in place by Americans. Society sets its own laws. It's not an "illegal law"
 
I think you're missing the point. The main argument against homosexuality is that it is not a genetic trait or that it is a choice, and therefore, it cannot be considered to have the same discrimination protection as race. This is the big argument when anyone on my side brings up interracial marriage. And I pointed out that the logic is wrong when saying that only things that aren't a person's choice are protected against discrimination. A person's religion is protected against discriminination and it is definitely a choice.

Also, most of the opposition is in fact due to religion. There are a lot of religious people in this country. However, most polls show that there is not a large gap in the difference of those who support gay marriage and those who don't, especially if you were to factor in those willing to give them the same rights, while calling it something else. The general gap between pro-gm and anti-gm is within 10%, or about 54% against, 46% for, and about a 2% don't care/don't know/undecided. The support for gay marriage is actually growing.

Being protected against discrimination doesn't allow additional rights. Homosexuals receive the same protections as Christians or Muslims in America.
 
I think you're missing the point. The main argument against homosexuality is that it is not a genetic trait or that it is a choice, and therefore, it cannot be considered to have the same discrimination protection as race. This is the big argument when anyone on my side brings up interracial marriage. And I pointed out that the logic is wrong when saying that only things that aren't a person's choice are protected against discrimination. A person's religion is protected against discriminination and it is definitely a choice.

Also, most of the opposition is in fact due to religion. There are a lot of religious people in this country. However, most polls show that there is not a large gap in the difference of those who support gay marriage and those who don't, especially if you were to factor in those willing to give them the same rights, while calling it something else. The general gap between pro-gm and anti-gm is within 10%, or about 54% against, 46% for, and about a 2% don't care/don't know/undecided. The support for gay marriage is actually growing.

I'm not missing the point, homosexuality is a choice and doesn't deserve extra rights any more so than choosing any other unnatural or unsavory behavior does. My opposition has nothing to do with religion, and even if it did, religious beliefs are just as valid a reason to be for or against something as anything else is. The fact of the matter is, the majority of Americans are against it. Why they are against it is their own business. Lastly, a persons sexual preference is as well protected against discrimination as a persons religious preference is.
 
American society sets it's own standards and laws. At present, American society has overwhelming stated, time and time again, that it doesn't and won't recognize gay "marriage". Simply put, there need not be any other reason than that.

See, I actually agree with you. Currently, the American society has overwhelmingly stated that it will not recognize gay marriage. Though research shows that this is an uninformed position, from a scientific standpoint, it is still up to the American people to decide this, regardless.
 
I'm not missing the point, homosexuality is a choice and doesn't deserve extra rights any more so than choosing any other unnatural or unsavory behavior does.

I stopped reading after this comment. When I see statements like this, I understand that I am listening to someone who has no intention of hearing facts nor someone who has much understanding on this issue.
 
I stopped reading after this comment. When I see statements like this, I understand that I am listening to someone who has no intention of hearing facts nor someone who has much understanding on this issue.

This is the fundamental flaw of the liberal. Having a differing opinion means I am ignorant, correct? There have been studies that indicate that homosexuality may be a choice, and there have been studies that say it is a choice. There have been no conclusive studies that prove homosexuality is not a choice. At present, you are no more informed about that issue than is anyone else.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom