• 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.
In the current set up where the marriage license is a contract issued by the State, no it's not right to try to stop it.
 
phattonez said:
I don't want it legally defined as marriage. Just have the state issue partnership licenses and end it at that.
Click to expand...

Since when did you gain legal control over that particular word in the English language anyhow? Inquiring minds want to know.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Probably. It's just the only argument towards forbidding gay marriage that I've ever seen that has any logic and reasonableness to it.
Click to expand...

But it's not really an argument against gay marriage, it's an argument against all marriage. I don't see these people actively campaigning to end all marriage though, so it's not a logical position to take.
 
There are some who directly link the word "marriage" with a religious joining of two persons - the majority, I think, would limit it to a man and a woman.

A portion of those persons would take it a step further and be of the opinion that a male - male marriage or a female - female marriage would be against the will of their deity/church/whatever.

I would not support "stopping" Gay Marriage, but to support allowing gay marriage, I would require that people who do not believe in it continue to be allowed the option of not recognizing it (they currently can, but in the states where gay marriage is allowed, legally defining it as a “marriage” upsets some people).

Thus I would support a new legal definition/word usage redefining legal marriages with some other term. "Civil Union" seems to be the most commonly suggested one.

This would seem to prevent any difficulties with those who hold the term "marriage" as part of their religion (not to mention the potential First Amendment issues), by simply side-stepping the whole thing.

Of course, there are probably those who want to not allow it at all, using the secular authorities to legislate a religious matter.

Unacceptable, and a potentially blatant violation of the First Amendment.

Personally, I don't really care.

It's just a word.

But...I think some opposition would be eliminated if another word were used.
 
Last edited:
Centrist77 said:
Im sure this issue has been debated over and over again but since im doing research and studying Id love more opinions cause its fun.

Also let me add not only am I looking for your opinion im looking for your reasoning if your answer is yes.

I have discussed gay marriage many many times and have yet to hear ONE sound, reasonable, logical, non-bais, non-selfish, non-arrogant, hypercritical, non anti-american reason to "Stop" gay marriage Almost every reason I have ever heard was also used about womens rights, equal rights interracial marriage etc. they were dumb and didnt apply then and they certainly havent changed now

now mind you, pay attention to my verbiage, I said reason to STOP it.

That means in America I think its fine for anybody to:
THINK its wrong, gross or offensive etc
TEACH its wrong gross or offensive etc
PREACH its wrong gross or offensive etc
BELIEVE its wrong gross or offensive etc
FEEL its wrong gross or offensive etc
etc

but once you try to stop it I think you wrong on so many levels.
I cant imagine how AMERICANS think they have the right to tell two CONSENTING ADULTS who and who they cant marry lmao
Does it get anymore pompous and arrogant and selfish and hypercritical and anti american than that. How anybody thinks they have the right to tell a person they cant marry another one is beyond me.

I myself im not gay so i REALLY feel its non of my business but has an american I have to call BS on the other so called americans that do think its there buisness some how.

Anyway maybe this time will be different, it actually be VERY interesting if it is different. So does anybody have ONE sound, reasonable, logical, non-bais, non-selfish, non-arrogant, non-hypercritical, non anti-american reason to "Stop" gay marriage. Who thinks they have a sound reason on why they should get to determine who two consenting adults can and can not marry.
Click to expand...

Generally speaking, sure, if you don't support what it is.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
If I think and feel that something is morally wrong, then I think it's absolutely acceptable to use the government to try to put a stop to it. That is what government is for.
Click to expand...

I disagree that that is what government is for. I believe government is there solely to increase security and prosperity by making society orderly and providing services and increase liberty through protecting the less powerful individuals from the powerful.

Sort of the stuff in the Preamble to the Constitution. That is what government is for. There are a lot of morals that fall outside of this scope.
 
They can have civil unions or get the government out of the marriage business altogether.

Two men or women do not make a marriage. They should however have all the rights and privileges of a married couple no matter what it is called.

My reasons for being against gay marriage is purely religious and semantics.

It is not open for debate. It will immediately turn this thread into a religious bashing session. Not interested in that.
 
Blackdog said:
They can have civil unions or get the government out of the marriage business altogether.

Two men or women do not make a marriage. They should however have all the rights and privileges of a married couple no matter what it is called.

My reasons for being against gay marriage is purely religious and semantics.

It is not open for debate. It will immediately turn this thread into a religious bashing session. Not interested in that.
Click to expand...

If you give them civil unions you are giving them "marriage" because 'separate but equal' will not stand scrutiny.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
If you give the civil unions you are giving them "marriage" because 'separate but equal' will not stand scrutiny.
Click to expand...

I'd really the to the "them" attitude be a thing of the past.
 
winston53660 said:
I'd really the to the "them" attitude be a thing of the past.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you're trying to say...literally I don't understand the sentence, proly just me though.
 
Jerry said:
If you give them civil unions you are giving them "marriage" because 'separate but equal' will not stand scrutiny.
Click to expand...

Has nothing to do with separate but equal. It has to do with two dudes does not make a marriage. It takes a man and a women, period.
 
Blackdog said:
Has nothing to do with separate but equal. It has to do with two dudes does not make a marriage. It takes a man and a women, period.
Click to expand...

It has everything to do with separate but equal. It doesn't stop with civil unions, they are a means to an end, so giving civil unions is giving marriage. Giving the civil rights is giving marriage. That's the result your choice brings.
 
I'm fine with civil unions (which are essentially just contracts, nothing too bad about that), but marriage is something to be left to private institutions. However, I see equality of access to gay and straight couples as the most important issue here.
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
I'm fine with civil unions (which are essentially just contracts, nothing too bad about that), but marriage is something to be left to private institutions. However, I see equality of access to gay and straight couples as the most important issue here.
Click to expand...

Marriage is not about equality.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Only logical anti-gay marriage position that I know of is the one that takes government out of the marriage business altogether. This position is usually based on not wanting to allow special privileges for folks just because they are married.
Click to expand...

To do that, you would have to amend the Constitution. Specifically Article 8, section 1;

Section 8.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

(snipped for brevity)

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

etc.

That is unless you are willing to give up the notion of marrying someone and making them a U.S. Citizen by doing so.
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
Go on

123456789
Click to expand...

"Cultural Universal". Everywhere on Earth, in any place, at any point in time, marriage is about the raising and socializing of children. Modern gay marriage is not, thus it is counter-culture.

There's no reason to care about your relationship if you aren't raising children whether you're gay or straight, living together or not. Go live with whomever you want. Have your life and I hope you live a good one. The legal buffs are for couples raising children, because raising children is the State's interest in promoting a relationship. Marriage is not for heteros looking for a tax brake, it's not for gays looking for social validation of their identity.

Gays don't make their movement about children. They make it about rights, etc, so there is no reason to care about gay marriage.
 
Last edited:
In the UK we have had civil partnerships for a while. I strongly believe that as long as no one is being hurt, it is not up to the state to regulate how people choose to live their lives.
 
Jerry said:
It has everything to do with separate but equal. It doesn't stop with civil unions, they are a means to an end, so giving civil unions is giving marriage. Giving the civil rights is giving marriage. That's the result your choice brings.
Click to expand...

Thats your point of view, and it has nothing to do with separate or equal for me.

As I said it is purely a semantic and religious argument for me. Nothing at all to do with equal anything except under the law. As long as they get equal treatment under the law, I don't care what they call it as long as it is not marriage.
 
Jerry said:
Generally speaking, sure, if you don't support what it is.
Click to expand...

so you think its right for YOU to tell two consenting adults they cant marry eachother, you believe thats YOU place, right and say?

interesting, why?
 
Jerry said:
"Cultural Universal". Everywhere on Earth, in any place, at any point in time, marriage is about the raising and socializing of children. Modern gay marriage is not, thus it is counter-culture.

There's no reason to care about your relationship if you aren't raising children whether you're gay or straight, living together or not. Go live with whomever you want. Have your life and I hope you live a good one. The legal buffs are for couples raising children, because raising children is the State's interest in promoting a relationship. Marriage is not for heteros looking for a tax brake, it's not for gays looking for social validation of their identity.

Gays don't make their movement about children. They make it about rights, etc, so there is no reason to care about gay marriage.
Click to expand...

Oh, we are back to that again eh? So is this where you are going to start arguing that childless heterosexual couples shouldn't be alllowed to marry? Infertile heterosexual couples? Couples to old to have children?

Why do you make this ridiculous argument? If you don't like the idea of gay marriage, then just say so. Don't try to justify it with ridiculous reasoning that even you don't believe.
 
Blackdog said:
They can have civil unions or get the government out of the marriage business altogether.

Two men or women do not make a marriage. They should however have all the rights and privileges of a married couple no matter what it is called.

My reasons for being against gay marriage is purely religious and semantics.

It is not open for debate. It will immediately turn this thread into a religious bashing session. Not interested in that.
Click to expand...

I will never bash a you for that. if your reason is purely religious that fine, its actually a GREAT reason to "believe" its wrong but its a not a logical reason to stop it in this country but you didnt say you would stop it you only said wat you would want.

your view on what makes a marriage is strictly only an opinion since same sex couples got married as far back as rome. I do dissagree about not couling it marriage though, no need to change the name if its the same thing.
 
Blackdog said:
Has nothing to do with separate but equal. It has to do with two dudes does not make a marriage. It takes a man and a women, period.
Click to expand...

nothing more than opinion and opinion you have 100% right too believe in but not one you should force on others

why did you focus one "dudes" what about women they are in this equation too, just a question
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
I'm fine with civil unions (which are essentially just contracts, nothing too bad about that), but marriage is something to be left to private institutions. However, I see equality of access to gay and straight couples as the most important issue here.
Click to expand...

currently civil unions do not have the same rights so thats one thing "bad" with it
secondly marriages has NOTHING to do with private institutions unless the people getting married want it to. A magistrate, judge, or even somebody with a license can marry people.

also let me be clear about the private institution thing, i would never support "forcing" and "private" institution to marry ANYBODY they didnt want too. People think this will happen but it wont and quite frankly it someone could "try" it now if they were straight, gay would have nothing to do with it
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom