• 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.
If the case can be made that same sex "marriage" is essential for the "general welfare" of the Nation? By all means, amend the definition. But do so keeping it in mind; how it will affect immigration, naturalization, and all the other laws concerning "marriage."

Again, I don't view being treated with indifference as being the same as one being "discriminated against."

Appeal to consequences of belief fallacy.

Next?
 
You have taken the small government defense, but you have failed to provide an argument for why heterosexual families should get to enjoy marriage whereas same sex families should not..

Then you have ignored the fact that I have said gays can (and do) form any sort of unions they want.

Government recognition is a completely different matter.

Government recognition is not necessary for couples to form their relationships and rear their children (no punn intended).
 
Last edited:
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.

Why do keep assuming I'm making the "because this is how we've always don it" argument?

It's been at least 3 years since I've abandoned that argument.

I support gay marriage when gay marriage is about the same thing every other kind of marriage is about.
 
Then you have ignored the fact that I have said gays can (and do) for any sort of unions they want.

Government recognition is a completely different matter.

Government recognition is not necessary for couples to form their relationships and rear their children (no punn intended).

The argument I made has nothing to do with whether or not gays can form their own unions. It is whether or not children can benefit from being raised by an unmarried same sex couple in the same way they can by being raised by a married same sex couple. The evidence I provided shows that marriage provides benefits to those children and therefore government recognition of same sex marriage is in the interest of those children and thus in the interest of general welfare.

What you continue to fail to do is provide evidence as to why those children should be denied the benefit of being raised by a married couple just because their parents are the same sex.

I don't care about the Constitutional rights of the gays when it comes to gay marriage. I care about the Constitutional rights of children being raised by gays when it comes to gay marriage.
 
Last edited:
The argument I made has nothing to do with whether or not gays can form their own unions. It is whether or not children can benefit from being raised by an unmarried same sex couple in the same way they can by being raised by a married same sex couple. The evidence I provided shows that marriage provides benefits to those children and therefore government recognition of same sex marriage is in the interest of those children and thus in the interest of general welfare.

What you continue to fail to do is provide evidence as to why those children should be denied the benefit of being raised by a married couple just because their parents are the same sex.

As I raised my child as a single parent with no benefits of marriage,... are you saying my rights or my child's rights were somehow violated? Can I get some back pay on that?
 
As I raised my child as a single parent with no benefits of marriage,... are you saying my rights or my child's rights were somehow violated? Can I get some back pay on that?

The child's right to be raised by two parents was violated. Your child would have undoubtedly benefited more by being raised by two loving parents than just by one. Society has an interest in promoting marriage in order to provide two parent homes, whether they be different sex or same sex.
 
I agree YOU shouldnt care about it so that exactly why YOU shouldnt stop it. Pick one? you said you shouldnt care but "sure"you should stop it, which is it

Both, and more also. The law should not endorse relationships which are of no value to anyone other than the couple, precisely because there's reason to support them.

also its "common" for marriage to ba about kids but not a rule since gay marriage happened in rome. Its a nice try and spin but not a logical reason to stop it.

Gay relationships in Rome were not of equals. Gay relationships of Rome were of master and student, of owner and slave, which is why it was illegal for a Roman citizen to be on the receiving end of a sexual encounter.

Even in feudal Japan where gay relationships were the accepted mainstream norm, such relationships were not assumed to be the same or equal to the husband and wife union.
 
Where in the Constitution?

The first Amendment gives me the right to speak out on issues as I see fit.

DebatePolitics forum rule #1 extends that right onto these private forums.
 
Last edited:
The child's right to be raised by two parents was violated. Your child would have undoubtedly benefited more by being raised by two loving parents than just by one. Society has an interest in promoting marriage in order to provide two parent homes, whether they be different sex or same sex.

You are dodging my point.

You claim that a child with married parents benefits unfairly against a child with un-married (gay) parents,... so would not the child of a single parent be in that same category?

What "marriage" benefit did she have?
 
The child's right to be raised by two parents was violated. Your child would have undoubtedly benefited more by being raised by two loving parents than just by one. Society has an interest in promoting marriage in order to provide two parent homes, whether they be different sex or same sex.

A child now has a RIGHT to be raised by two parents?

So, when my mother passed,.. and I was only 18 months old,.. my brother was only 9 days old,... Our rights were violated?

Who knew?
 
You are dodging my point.

You claim that a child with married parents benefits unfairly against a child with un-married (gay) parents,... so would not the child of a single parent be in that same category?

What "marriage" benefit did she have?

Alright, let's start with single parent raised kids. Society incurs a great cost due to kids who are being raised by only a single parent.

63% of youth suicides are from single mother homes.

[U. S. D.H.H.S. Bureau of the Census]

90% of all homeless and runaway children are from single mother homes.

85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from single mother homes.

[Center for Disease Control]

80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from single mother homes.

[Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 14 p. 403-26]

71% of all high school dropouts come from single mother homes.

[National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools]

70% of juveniles in state operated institutions come from single mother homes

[U.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Report, Sept., 1988]

85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a single mother home.

[Fulton County Georgia Jail Populations and Texas Dept. of Corrections, 1992]

Etc. etc.

Children of single parents pay a large price and society picks up the tab.
 
A child now has a RIGHT to be raised by two parents?

So, when my mother passed,.. and I was only 18 months old,.. my brother was only 9 days old,... Our rights were violated?

Who knew?

If it can be argued that one has a "right" to insurance, then any conceivable right to anything can also exist.
 
Alright, let's start with single parent raised kids. Society incurs a great cost due to kids who are being raised by only a single parent.

63% of youth suicides are from single mother homes.

[U. S. D.H.H.S. Bureau of the Census]

90% of all homeless and runaway children are from single mother homes.

85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from single mother homes.

[Center for Disease Control]

80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from single mother homes.

[Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 14 p. 403-26]

71% of all high school dropouts come from single mother homes.

[National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools]

70% of juveniles in state operated institutions come from single mother homes

[U.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Report, Sept., 1988]

85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a single mother home.

[Fulton County Georgia Jail Populations and Texas Dept. of Corrections, 1992]

Etc. etc.

Children of single parents pay a large price and society picks up the tab.

You didn't answer my question.

Where her rights any less violated (in respect to the children of married couples) than a gay couples children are?

Yes they were or no they were not?
 
You didn't answer my question.

Where her rights any less violated (in respect to the children of married couples) than a gay couples children are?

Yes they were or no they were not?

Yes. Because there is no law that says you could not marry someone you loved and raised her with that person. But there are 31 state constitutional amendments that deny that right to the children of same sex couples. You chose not to marry, but even if same sex couples wanted to get married, they could not.
 
Yes. Because there is no law that says you could not marry someone you loved and raised her with that person. But there are 31 state constitutional amendments that deny that right to the children of same sex couples. You chose not to marry, but even if same sex couples wanted to get married, they could not.

So the difference from my daughters rights perspective is nill.

Isn't it.

What's she going to do? Sue me because I didn't re-marry right away?
 
Last edited:
So the difference from my daughters rights perspective is nill.

Isn't it.

You aren't listening at all.

You chose not to get married to someone who would help you raise her. You had the right to get married and did not. You made the choice for your daughter.

Gay couples don't have that choice in 31 states. They don't get to make that choice on behalf of their children. The state made it for them, and thus the state denied children the opportunity to be raised by two parents.

I'm not going to tell parents how to raise their children. I, however, do not believe the state should be making that decision when it goes against the general welfare of the children.
 
You aren't listening at all.

You chose not to get married to someone who would help you raise her. You had the right to get married and did not. You made the choice for your daughter.

Gay couples don't have that choice in 31 states. They don't get to make that choice on behalf of their children. The state made it for them, and thus the state denied children the opportunity to be raised by two parents.

I'm not going to tell parents how to raise their children. I, however, do not believe the state should be making that decision when it goes against the general welfare of the children.

You aren't listening to what I am saying,... The government doesn't have the obligation to reward every kind of civil union we 'the people' can come up with.

The government has the responsibility to define marriage as necessary for things like immigration (article 8, section 1) but it does not have the responsibility to see that every child from every conceivable union (or in my case Non-union) receives the same benefits of the definition of marriage that it does recognize for the purposes of the General Welfare (again Article 8, section 1)

Governmental Indifference is not an act of discrimination.
 
Last edited:
You aren't listening to what I am saying,... The government doesn't have the obligation to reward every kind of civil union we 'the people' can come up with.

You aren't listening to what I am saying. I provided evidence of how 8 to 10 million children of gays parents and same sex couples could benefit and tens of thousands of foster care children could benefit. There is no evidence of any real harm to society for recognizing it. Therefore, if the government is to ensure that it promotes general welfare, it must by its Constitutional obligation, recognize it.

The government has the responsibility to define marriage as necessary for things like immigration (article 8, section 1) but it does not have the responsibility to see that every child from every conceivable union (or in my case Non-union) to receive the same benefits of the definition of marriage that it does recognize for the purposes of the General Welfare (again Article 8, section 1)

I agree. Gay marriage is a union which promotes general welfare for a large segment of society and causes no considerable harm. Unions like incest and polygamy do not promote such general welfare and can do considerable harm. As such, the federal government will eventually recognize gay marriage. I have faith in the system.

Goevernmental Indifference is not an act of discrimination.

I never made that argument. 31 states passing constitutional amendments against same sex marriage is not indifference. It is a clear action that is against the general welfare of this nation.


So how much longer before you start citing the Bible or leave this thread because my arguments are threatening your beliefs?
 
Last edited:
You aren't listening to what I am saying. I provided evidence of how 8 to 10 million children of gays parents and same sex couples could benefit and tens of thousands of foster care children could benefit. There is no evidence of any real harm to society for recognizing it. Therefore, if the government is to ensure that it promotes general welfare, it must by its Constitutional obligation, recognize it.

I agree. Gay marriage is a union which promotes general welfare for a large segment of society and causes no considerable harm. Unions like incest and polygamy do not promote such general welfare and can do considerable harm. As such, the federal government will eventually recognize gay marriage. I have faith in the system.

I never made that argument. 31 states passing constitutional amendments against same sex marriage is not indifference. It is a clear action that is against the general welfare of this nation.

And the point is (as Jerry demonstrated) different people will come each to their own conclusion as to what is and what is not in keeping with the "general welfare" needs of the nation and they will vote accordingly.

YOU seem to have this 'all or nothing' attitude that if the government is going to do one thing to promote the general welfare,... it has to do all things which would arguably 'promote the general welfare.'

And in reality,... that's not the case.
 
Last edited:
Regarding the aspect of this discussion focused on the children facet of marriage.

I think I read somewhere that as a general rule, a Male + Female parent combo was best for raising a child.

Followed by Female + Female.

I cannot recall where I read this, and it obviously depends on the individuals involved, but I thought I’d throw it into the mix.
 
Last edited:
And the point is (as Jerry demonstrated) different people will come each to their own conclusion as to what is and what is not in keeping with the "general welfare" needs of the nation and they will vote accordingly.

Sorry, but it isn't a matter of opinion. It's a matter of evidence. I provided evidence of how it is beneficial, and you can provide none to indicate otherwise. Therefore, I'm acting reasonably and you are acting unreasonably, because you are choosing to ignore the evidence just because it doesn't mesh with your beliefs. That is what social conservatives are very good at doing.

YOU seem to have this 'all or nothing' attitude that if the government is going to do one thing to promote the general welfare,... it has to do all things which would arguably 'promote the general welfare.'

That is how law works. The same arguments that have been used for improving the general welfare of this nation can reasonably be extended to gay marriage. Therefore it will only be a matter of time before the faulty and irrational beliefs that you social conservative push will come crashing down and people who genuinely believe in making this country a better place for everyone will have their day.

And in reality,... that's not the case.

I'm advocating on behalf of children and you are advocating against them. That is the case.
 
Last edited:
Regarding the aspect of this discussion focused on the children facet of marriage.

I think I read somewhere that as a general rule, a Male + Female parent combo was best for raising a child.

Followed by Female + Female.

I cannot recall where I read this, and it obviously depends on the individuals involved, but I thought I’d throw it into the mix.

Actually Female + Female is. Heterosexual males represent the most likely candidates to molest children.

It's a misconception that Male and Female is always ideal. A heterosexual couple can neglect, abuse, and molest its children. That isn't to say that it doesn't happen with homosexual couples, but the latest 25 years of evidence demonstrates quite consistently that kids raised by same sex couples turn out no better or worse adjusted than those raised by different sex couples.
 
Last edited:
Actually Female + Female is. Heterosexual males represent the most likely candidates to molest children.

It's a misconception that Male and Female is always ideal. A heterosexual couple can neglect, abuse, and molest its children. That isn't to say that it doesn't happen with homosexual couples, but the latest 25 years of evidence demonstrates quite consistently that kids raised by same sex couples turn out no better or worse adjusted than those raised by different sex couples.
Hmm, that could be.

I think what I read had more to do with the different parenting styles that a male would use as opposed to a female, and how the two combined would be better than two females.

Although not much, if I recall.

Perhaps if I rephrase, as I recall more of that which I read.

If two persons raise a child with the well-being of the child in mind, all things being equal, a male-female parent combo will result in a more balanced child than a female-female combo.

Although only just.

A male-male combo would be third, followed by a single female, and lastly by a single male.

Of course, that doesn't count multiple females and one male, or multiple males and one female, or multiple females and multiple males, in any given combo.

But those are the exceptions, not the rule.

And, of course, this was presented as a general guideline, as there would always be exceptions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom