• 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.
roguenuke said:
No. Marriage has been around for longer than most current religions. And civil marriage is completely separate from religious marriage. People who have no religion at all can get married. People of different religious beliefs can get a civil marriage, even if they can't get married in one or either of their churches. Civil marriage is a contract between two people to make each other legal family in the eyes of the government, because such unions provide benefits to society and are bestowed benefits/privileges by society because of those benefits. Civil marriage is separate from religious/private marriage. Most of the time, they happen together, but they each can technically exist without each other.
Click to expand...

Actually, the modern concept of marriage is most likely a construct of the early Catholic church.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Because until fairly recently in history, the Bible has been accepted as a literal interpretation of how society should function. Most science was based on it as was most morality. The literal interpretation. Religion has been the issue.



I never said that negative societal impact wouldn't be a concern. However, you are taking this as your default position, but that position is without any foundation, whereas the positive positon has some.
Click to expand...

It is only without foundation in this particular subject because it has yet to occur. Open it up to comparison to other changes in society and the impacts that have occured there. Christianity is not the only religion opposed to same sex marriage. There is little indication that it was accepted on any scale prior to Christianity.
 
mac said:
So, basically what you're saying is that you have your opinion on the issue and no matter who says what, you believe what you believe. Right?
Click to expand...

I'm saying I don't really care if it is a choice or not, because homosexuality does not harm anyone, so why should it be discriminated against? I don't believe it is a choice because I know that it would take some serious effort on my part to even consider sleeping with a woman, and I can't imagine choosing to sleep with a woman rather than a man, if given a choice. I am not attracted to women. They don't turn me on. It doesn't matter to me if this was caused by genetics, hormones, actually physical environmental factors, how I was raised, my life experiences, or a combination of some or all of these. It is not a conscience choice for me to be attracted to men, and specifically to be in love with my husband. If I could choose to be in love or even attracted to someone I wasn't, then I would have married much earlier than I did to someone I know would have treated me pretty much like a queen and given me anything I wanted. But in the end, it doesn't matter to me why I am attracted to who I am or why others are, as long as their relationships are healthy and happy for me/them.
 
mac said:
It is only without foundation in this particular subject because it has yet to occur.
Click to expand...

It's without foundation on ANY scale. The pro side has foundation in smaller groups.

Open it up to comparison to other changes in society and the impacts that have occured there.
Click to expand...

Sure. And you have mentioned some. And the ones that you have mentioned have been more beneficial to society than they have been harmful.

Christianity is not the only religion opposed to same sex marriage. There is little indication that it was accepted on any scale prior to Christianity.
Click to expand...

mac, you have a tendency to take general positions of mine and try to turn them into more narrow ones. I never said "Christianity". I said religion. That encompasses all religions. Remember, the OT dates back further than the beginnings of Chrstianity. Further, though most of the societies that we have information on are since the birth of Christ, those that date back further had their own religous or moral reasonings. Non-acceptance of homosexuality in societies has been near exclusively a religious/morality issue. It has only been recently that science has demonstrated that these beliefs are faulty.
 
mac said:
Actually, the modern concept of marriage is most likely a construct of the early Catholic church.
Click to expand...

Whose concept of marriage? My civil marriage is a contract between my husband and I, which is endorsed by the government to make us family. My private marriage is a promise that my husband and I made to each other during a ceremony, in front of our friends and family, to be together for life. We had no mention of God in our ceremony. And my husband has told me jokingly that if the government ever tried to insist that every marriage had to be an actual religious ceremony, then we would be getting married in the woods naked.

I have heard of plenty of different weddings and marriages. I have been to several weddings, which were all quite different. Mine was in the front lawn of a horse farm. I was at one in a small wedding chapel. I was in another that took place in the officiant's back yard. I attended an actual Catholic wedding as well. The only thing that was the same about all of them was there was a bride, a groom, and someone there to marry them. My officiant even told me that she did a wedding ceremony in a hot tub.

The Catholic Church incorporated a lot of traditions into many of its ceremonies, including a wedding, from earlier cultures.
 
mac said:
Actually, the modern concept of marriage is most likely a construct of the early Catholic church.
Click to expand...

So you mean nuns are really married to Jesus whose body many practice ritualized cannibalism on the first Sunday of the month?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
It's without foundation on ANY scale. The pro side has foundation in smaller groups.



Sure. And you have mentioned some. And the ones that you have mentioned have been more beneficial to society than they have been harmful.



mac, you have a tendency to take general positions of mine and try to turn them into more narrow ones. I never said "Christianity". I said religion. That encompasses all religions. Remember, the OT dates back further than the beginnings of Chrstianity. Further, though most of the societies that we have information on are since the birth of Christ, those that date back further had their own religous or moral reasonings. Non-acceptance of homosexuality in societies has been near exclusively a religious/morality issue. It has only been recently that science has demonstrated that these beliefs are faulty.
Click to expand...

Well, Capt. I think this really boils down to different viewpoints on a lot of the same things. I don't think in the cases that I've mentioned, that the good does outweigh the bad and in many others that we could continue discussinf for eons. If two people look at the exact same information, they can often derive two entirely different assumptions from it.

I think there are too many unfortunate assumptions made about the opposition on both sides of this discussion. People are so quick to label. One the one side there are tree huggin, fruit bats, on the other Religious zealots and bigots. Unfortunately for those of in the middle of that spectrum, we have to deal with insults, in order to have a stance.

I wouldn't have participated in this discussion for this long if it were simply my intention to tell everyone how wrong they are, I really do want to to hear the justifications from both sides on this issue. Both Capt and Rogue have offerd up legitimate challenges to my position that will leave me thinking for some time, however at present I still beleive in my position on this.

I don't judge everything to be right or wrong because it's written in some book, or because that's just the way it is. But I don't automatically accept everything that is a challenge to "just the way it is" either. There is plenty to be said for convetional wisdom, and at times it does need to be challenged. My kids, in fact, challenge me all the time. It makes me sit back and think about why I feel a certain way.

Thanks to all that have discussed this with me respectfully. It's often very difficult to debate with someone respectfully, and my hat is off to both Rogue and Capt. I don't feel this is progressing, so I'm going to bow out of the thread.

My parting shot thoug :) is that I feel we all to some extent or the other, selectively choose the information we use to support and otherwise ignore the information that doesn't support our positions. Me included.
 
mac said:
Well, Capt. I think this really boils down to different viewpoints on a lot of the same things. I don't think in the cases that I've mentioned, that the good does outweigh the bad and in many others that we could continue discussinf for eons. If two people look at the exact same information, they can often derive two entirely different assumptions from it.

I think there are too many unfortunate assumptions made about the opposition on both sides of this discussion. People are so quick to label. One the one side there are tree huggin, fruit bats, on the other Religious zealots and bigots. Unfortunately for those of in the middle of that spectrum, we have to deal with insults, in order to have a stance.

I wouldn't have participated in this discussion for this long if it were simply my intention to tell everyone how wrong they are, I really do want to to hear the justifications from both sides on this issue. Both Capt and Rogue have offerd up legitimate challenges to my position that will leave me thinking for some time, however at present I still beleive in my position on this.

I don't judge everything to be right or wrong because it's written in some book, or because that's just the way it is. But I don't automatically accept everything that is a challenge to "just the way it is" either. There is plenty to be said for convetional wisdom, and at times it does need to be challenged. My kids, in fact, challenge me all the time. It makes me sit back and think about why I feel a certain way.

Thanks to all that have discussed this with me respectfully. It's often very difficult to debate with someone respectfully, and my hat is off to both Rogue and Capt. I don't feel this is progressing, so I'm going to bow out of the thread.

My parting shot thoug :) is that I feel we all to some extent or the other, selectively choose the information we use to support and otherwise ignore the information that doesn't support our positions. Me included.
Click to expand...

I disagree with your position and your reasoning for the most part, but as opposed to most I debate this issue with, you handled yourself respectfully and intelligently. I found some of your arguments quite logical, and I probably thanked more of your posts than I have any "anti" in a long time. You, for the most part, did not use standard "anti" talking points, and were not degrading in anyway.

Though I disagree with you, you have earned my respect, sir.
 
mac said:
No, actually, that is my point.
Click to expand...

You can't be serious... your point is that in 1,000 years something bad may or may not happen as a result of allowing same sex marriage? That is not much of an argument.
 
wow 189 pages and 1884 posts

Update

Lets check the count, how many sound, reasonable, logical, non-bais, non-selfish, non-arrogant, non-hypercritical, non anti-american reason are there to "Stop" gay marriage

GOOD REASONS: 0

still holding strong
 
Centrist77 said:
wow 189 pages and 1884 posts

Update

Lets check the count, how many sound, reasonable, logical, non-bais, non-selfish, non-arrogant, non-hypercritical, non anti-american reason are there to "Stop" gay marriage

GOOD REASONS: 0

still holding strong
Click to expand...
Hey, this thread died of old age and lack of discussion...How dare you revive it!

:mrgreen:
 
The Mark said:
Hey, this thread died of old age and lack of discussion...How dare you revive it!

:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

whoooooooooooo meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee?:angel?:

just wanted to check the count and see if it changed ;)
 
Most Americans do NOT want gay marriage. They have voted it down dozens of times. The gay judge who just ruled for it should have recused himself.
 
chickie said:
Most Americans do NOT want gay marriage. They have voted it down dozens of times. The gay judge who just ruled for it should have recused himself.
Click to expand...

Why shoud he have recused himself?
 
Because he is gay. He is not objective. He was doing what HE wanted, not what the voters want.
 
chickie said:
Because he is gay. He is not objective. He was doing what HE wanted, not what the voters want.
Click to expand...

So wouldn't that mean that straight judges also can't be objective?

Judges rule on law, not popularity polls.
 
No. I think the gay judge voted for what HE supported, not what the people wanted/ voted on.
 
Good thing there are higher courts and other judges that will likely overcome your "gay" disqualification criteria who will hear the case then.

I don't think a male should hear the case though since he might want to get married and be biased..

ohh crap a female cannot either.. only a panel of hermaphrodites will do here, wait even they might want to get married.. Dolphin court FTW!
 
Last edited:
chickie said:
No. I think the gay judge voted for what HE supported, not what the people wanted/ voted on.
Click to expand...

He didn't vote, he ruled. There is no clause in the 14th amendment that stipulates that it can be overruled by referendum.
 
chickie said:
No. I think the gay judge voted for what HE supported, not what the people wanted/ voted on.
Click to expand...

You seem awfully confused in regards to the role of our judicial branch of government. Their job is to interpret the law and not gauge public opinion.

It's an easy mistake to make if you haven't taken basic civics in school quite yet.
 
chickie said:
Because he is gay. He is not objective. He was doing what HE wanted, not what the voters want.
Click to expand...

The Constitution, including the Constitutions of the various States, exist to protect us from what the voters want. The California Supreme Court ruled that prohibiting gay marriage was unconstitutional. Proposition 8 prohibited gay marriage and was, once again, found to be unconstitutional.
 
chickie said:
Most Americans do NOT want gay marriage. They have voted it down dozens of times. The gay judge who just ruled for it should have recused himself.
Click to expand...

SO your reason is??????
and what does the judge being gay have to do with anything? thats right nothing

That damn gay judge fulfilling his constitutional mandated roll of safeguarding the peoples liberty how dare he!!! <sarcasm :) >

btw I think I read 57% of Americans are opposed to same-sex marriages. When interracial marriage was legalized, 72% of Americans opposed it. Wow look we are improving has a country!!!!Thats GOOD news by the way.
 
chickie said:
Because he is gay. He is not objective. He was doing what HE wanted, not what the voters want.
Click to expand...

this only proves you didnt read his ruling because it was very clear IMO and a very good one. Also what the voters want arent always a judges concern his concern is the law and constitution.

btw the way who do we let rule on the subject then? under your weak logic anybody could be argued bias lol
 
Last edited:
The simple solution is to get government out of the marriage business and then we wouldn't have to worry about gay judges making decisions based upon his own beliefs.
 
deltabtry said:
The simple solution is to get government out of the marriage business and then we wouldn't have to worry about gay judges making decisions based upon his own beliefs.
Click to expand...

Or straight judges making decisions based on their own beliefs, either. I'm sure you forgot about that, so I added it for you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom