• 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.
Jerry said:
Well if that's so, then why are unmarried lesbian couples far more stable than legally married heteros?

Obviously the ability to marry is not a factor.
Click to expand...

probably the reason more males cheat?
also gay women are WAY more accepted than gay men, especially if they are cute

so theres two fators right there that can skew the scale too make lesbians more stable, so yes OBVIOUSLY marriage can STILL be a factor :)
next
 
Jerry said:
Well again I don't give a **** about what's 'fair' or 'equal'. I care about a strong and stable society.
Click to expand...

I know you dont, its obvious but well again you have no clue if this would make us weak and unstable, the data has already be proved askew and is based of off single parents
 
Centrist77 said:
probably the reason more males cheat?
Click to expand...

Could be, so as gay men are a high-risk demographic, and we can't single out gay men, we should put safeguards for everyone in the same bill we pass to establish the right to marry someone of the same sex.
 
Centrist77 said:
I know you dont, its obvious but well again you have no clue if this would make us weak and unstable, the data has already be proved askew and is based of off single parents
Click to expand...

The data shows that children do better in 2 parent homes than in single parent homes and that it doesn't matter whether the 2 parents are of the same sex or not.

The data also shows that gay man are more likely to harm said children with a broken home, hence the need to add requirements to the marriage license for everyone.
 
Jerry said:
Could be, so as gay men are a high-risk demographic, and we can't single out gay men, we should put safeguards for everyone in the same bill we pass to establish the right to marry someone of the same sex.
Click to expand...

why does there need to be safe guards on marriage?
and what would these safeguards be? who decides?
seems your taking your not caring attitude about fair and equal to a whole new level and you are opening up a can of worms to FURTHER discriminate and deny equal rights to even more people
 
Jerry said:
The data shows that children do better in 2 parent homes than in single parent homes and that it doesn't matter whether the 2 parents are of the same sex or not.

The data also shows that gay man are more likely to harm said children with a broken home, hence the need to add requirements to the marriage license for everyone.
Click to expand...

so by statement one gay marriage COULD be argued to STRENGTHEN our society lol

and ive seen data that says your statement 2 is wrong, at least in 1997 it was when i studied child abuse, domestic abuse and molestation. At that time straight males commit the most sex crimes across the board.
 
Jerry said:
That's true but worthless since the same can be said for incest; that argument doesn't say anything specific of gay couples, but of just any couple one can imagine.
Click to expand...

Bull****! There are 8 to 10 million children of gay parents and same sex couples. It's the same damn statistic you yourself had me dig up months ago from the child welfare information gateway. Find me a statistic that says there are anywhere near that many incestuous families. I'm two words away from ignoring you Jerry and your ludicrous arguments.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
The consenting adults might belong to a high-risk demographic. .
Click to expand...

Are you talking about people that that could pass on sickle cell anemia?
 
Centrist77 said:
why does there need to be safe guards on marriage?
Click to expand...

To reduce the divorce rate, lower stress in the home, and assist the general welfare of the family. This in turn lowers the juvenile crime rate, teen pregnancy, teen abortion, and increases academic performance.

Centrist77 said:
and what would these safeguards be? who decides?
Click to expand...

The same people who set all the other standards which currently exist today.
 
Centrist77 said:
so by statement one gay marriage COULD be argued to STRENGTHEN our society lol
Click to expand...

It sure could, absolutely, which is why I support gay marriage when it's about the family instead of Rights™ or Equality™.
 
CriticalThought said:
Bull****! There are 8 to 10 million children of gay parents and same sex couples. It's the same damn statistic you yourself had me dig up months ago from the child welfare information gateway. Find me a statistic that says there are anywhere near that many incestuous families. I'm two words away from ignoring you Jerry and your ludicrous arguments.
Click to expand...

Oh I thought you said you didn't have numbers on how many gay couples were raising children.

If you know how many gay couples there are, and you know how many children are being raised by gay couples, then you can do some 4th grade math to discover the % of gay couples raising children for comparison to the previously referenced census number on married heteros.

You said you didn't have those numbers, so when you gave the 8 to 10 million number out of context I wasn't sure of what you were talking about.
 
winston53660 said:
Are you talking about people that that could pass on sickle cell anemia?
Click to expand...

I had the step-parent dynamic in mine (high-risk of divorcing), but sure that works as well.

The number one cause for divorce of first marriages in the US are fights about money.The number one cause for divorce of second marriages in the US being fights about control in step-parent families. So, it follows that anyone who cares about marriage will include safeguards to resolve these problems.

Gays are equal to heteros. Fine, that means they will also have a 50% divorce rate.

I don't see how "gays will also have a 50% divorce rate" helps reduce the divorce rate.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
To reduce the divorce rate, lower stress in the home, and assist the general welfare of the family. This in turn lowers the juvenile crime rate, teen pregnancy, teen abortion, and increases academic performance.



The same people who set all the other standards which currently exist today.
Click to expand...

Wow guy you make no sense sometimes, first you say you would vote against it, then you say you dont care, then you say gay men are unstable they shouldnt marry then you say if its two parents its more stable they should marry, then you say remove government from marriage, now you want government in marriage to set standards etc etc

could you possible try and more spinning, back peddling and changing of opinion when you cant defend it LMAO

its very obvious now you just have no clue what you are talking about, you just want to debate but arent even capable of keeping the same opinion or on point, ive never talked to a person so lost and cluess on a subject like this lol
 
Centrist77 said:
Wow guy you make no sense sometimes, first you say you would vote against it, then you say you dont care, then you say gay men are unstable they shouldnt marry then you say if its two parents its more stable they should marry, then you say remove government from marriage, now you want government in marriage to set standards etc etc

could you possible try and more spinning, back peddling and changing of opinion when you cant defend it LMAO

its very obvious now you just have no clue what you are talking about, you just want to debate but aren't even capable of keeping the same opinion or on point, ive never talked to a person so lost and cluess on a subject like this lol
Click to expand...

You've never encountered someone who's vote was conditional?

When gay marriage is about rights and equality, I oppose it, because marriage per-se is not about rights and equality.

When gay marriage is about the raising and socializing of children, I support it, because marriage per-se is about the raising and socializing of children.

You keep asserting that gay marriage is about rights and equality, so it follows that I would argue against you as I oppose gay marriage on those grounds.

You deny that marriage per-se is about children and family, that it's about "consenting adults", so you and I will probably argue against each other until the end of time even though we both support gays getting married.

Funny isn't it :rofl
 
Last edited:
Marriage is a sacred contract between a man and a woman. This must never change. This should be respected by the homosexuals, evidently, it is not...There is such a thing as going too far.
A state approved union between two men or two women , however repugnant, disgusting is OK with me.
Not all is peaches and cream, in our society, nor can it be.

I am in the 21% minority here.
 
Jerry said:
....., so you and I will probably argue against each other until the end of time even though we both support gays getting married.
Click to expand...

earthworm said:
Marriage is a sacred contract between a man and a woman. This must never change. This should be respected by the homosexuals, evidently, it is not...There is such a thing as going too far.
Click to expand...

See that?

The Conservative supports gay-marriage while the Independent opposes it.

Makes you think twice about all the political stereotypes, aye?
 
Generally speaking, I am somewhat opposed to gay marriage.

The problem I have with the OP is the presumption that being for gay marriage is the default, as if it is some inborn right that is being denied. I have yet to be persuaded of this.

I've given my reasons before. Historically, marriage has been almost universally a male-female union, with the implication that children will likely be born and raised in the family. This has held true throughout almost all cultures and almost all periods of history, with a very few rare exceptions. Even societies where homosexuality was widespread and widely accepted (ancient Greek city-states, certain limited periods in ancient Rome), marriage was still almost exclusively reserved for male-female unions with the implication that childrearing was a primary purpose.

The default state of marriage is male-female. Allowing same-sex marriage (SSM hereafter) would be a redefining of the institution. The burden of proof that SSM is necessary and positive is therefore on the supporters of SSM, not the defenders of traditional marriage. I have yet to be convinced that such a redefinition is a societal positive, necessary, or without unintended consequences.

Marriage has historically been as much about family (ie children) as about simply coupledom. SSM does not, in and of itself, produce children without the intervention of a 3rd party who is not part of the union... making "gay marriage" questionable in another sense. (Yes, I know not all straights have children, but in the normal course of events most straight marriages do, and no SSM marriage results in conception without outside aid.) There is a legitimate societal intrest in the production and upbringing of children.

I have been told that there are studies showing that children raised by gay couples do as well as children raised by straight couples; I have to question whether these studies could be agenda-driven, and have yet to be persuaded that they are not. I have been told that children of gay couples are no more likely to grow up to be gay than children of straight couples, but I have yet to see links to these studies. I remain somewhat dubious that a child does as well raised by SSM parents as by a traditional family with both male and female role-models. I have been presented no data on what percentage of gay couples who wish to marry have any intrest in adopting or raising children.

What percentage of the population wishes to be married as SSMs? Certainly not all GLBTs do. Is it one percent? Two percent? Should society force a redefinition of marriage on 90-97% of the population for the sake of the desires of 1 or 2 percent? Not without some very compelling reasons.

Another concern I have falls under Unintended Consequences, or unexpected consequences, or 'where does it go from here'? Before someone brings up the slippery slope fallacy, check my sig: that fallacy does not apply when someone is pushing an agenda, and using one success as a staging point for their next item.

It would be hard to justify maintaining a ban on polygamous/polyanderous/polyamorous/group marriages for long, once SSM is widely legitimized. What further effects might these changes have on the institution of marriage and family in our society? I have seen no studies.

Many gays are content to live their lives and let others do likewise; however there is a certain small but vocal percentage of gays who could be classified as "militant activists". This group is not, and never will be, satisfied with tolerance, but instead wishes to push "forced acceptance". If SSM becomes the law of the land, how long before someone sues the Catholic Church in an attempt to force them to perform gay marriage ceremonies and accept gay couples as "married in the church"?

This militant group concerns me. What is next on their agenda? I have actually had people tell me that I am committing child abuse if I teach my child that homosexuality is wrong. Will the next item on the agenda be an attempt to make teaching/preaching against homosexuality a crime? It has happened in other countries... I've heard there are laws on the books in Canada that could cause a minister to be jailed for preaching against homosexuality, even if there is no advocacy of violence involved (as there usually isn't).

An activist movement is based on movement. When one goal is achieved, another must be found to maintain the momentum and cohesion of the activist organization. The leadership must always agitate that there is yet one more wrong that must be righted, one more bastion of resistance that must be overrun. Witness the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, who seem not to realize that we have probably come as close to achieving MLK's "dream" as we're likely to come, and continue to act as if it is still 1960.

I remain concerned that accepting SSM and making it the law of the land may not be in society's best intrests as I see it.
 
Last edited:
Centrist77 said:
actually you are wrong again because you could still not "accept" it and THINK its wrong and BELIEVE its wrong and TEACH its wrong but once you stop it you are denying people rights that you already have and that’s what makes you a hypocrite

What if said religion said no kids before marriage? Are you going to defend that and have a non-acceptance of it? Guess those kids should be taken away.

What if said religion said no sex before marriage, arrest people who do?
What if religion was against masturbation? Arrest them too?

sorry not good enough by any stretch of the imagination because once we only do things by YOUR or ONE religion we violate the right of FREEDOM OF RELIGION
Click to expand...
I was not speaking of "stopping" it, but of "non-acceptance" of it.

The two are not the same.

And you seem to be under the false impression that this hypothetical religion I presented is one I hold as my own.

I was speaking of "non-acceptance" as just that - not accepting something.

Not actively seeking to prevent it.

My opinions/views on this issue of gay marriage, if they were not already clear, are as follows:

  • Religious marriage between two persons, no matter their sex(s), is a religious matter, and thus should be hashed out between the religions, with no government/secular involvement.
    Indeed, if my understanding is correct, government/secular involvement to support/control/stop such would be unconstitutional.
  • Legal marriage between two persons, no matter their sex(s), should be renamed to "civil union" or some such, perhaps of more than one type, hopefully preventing those who take issue with gay marriages from taking issue.
    After all, if it's a solely secular issue, using religious views to dictate to it would ALSO be unconstitutional.
  • The two should not be connected in anyway, and should be separated if currently connected.
  • A religious marriage should involve whatever religious ceremony appropriate.
  • A legal marriage should only involve the signing of a piece of paper, with appropriate officials and lawyers as necessary.

Edit: Actually, that might not be all that clear....Ah well, we'll see what develops.

And as a side note, you are obviously not a Centrist...
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
You've never encountered someone who's vote was conditional?

When gay marriage is about rights and equality, I oppose it, because marriage per-se is not about rights and equality.

When gay marriage is about the raising and socializing of children, I support it, because marriage per-se is about the raising and socializing of children.

You keep asserting that gay marriage is about rights and equality, so it follows that I would argue against you as I oppose gay marriage on those grounds.

You deny that marriage per-se is about children and family, that it's about "consenting adults", so you and I will probably argue against each other until the end of time even though we both support gays getting married.

Funny isn't it :rofl
Click to expand...

that a nice piece of fantasy you just wrote there but certainly doesnt hold true to anybody that has read this whole thread, yes you are funny, i laugh at you very often :)
 
earthworm said:
Marriage is a sacred contract between a man and a woman. This must never change. This should be respected by the homosexuals, evidently, it is not...There is such a thing as going too far.
A state approved union between two men or two women , however repugnant, disgusting is OK with me.
Not all is peaches and cream, in our society, nor can it be.

I am in the 21% minority here.
Click to expand...

Man & Woman?
Says who? you? based on what
same sex marriages have been around for over 1000 years so there would be no disrespect in reality only in your mind. Marriage also isnt that secret, reality also proves that
 
Goshin said:
Generally speaking, I am somewhat opposed to gay marriage.

The problem I have with the OP is the presumption that being for gay marriage is the default, as if it is some inborn right that is being denied. I have yet to be persuaded of this.

I've given my reasons before. Historically, marriage has been almost universally a male-female union, with the implication that children will likely be born and raised in the family. This has held true throughout almost all cultures and almost all periods of history, with a very few rare exceptions. Even societies where homosexuality was widespread and widely accepted (ancient Greek city-states, certain limited periods in ancient Rome), marriage was still almost exclusively reserved for male-female unions with the implication that childrearing was a primary purpose.

The default state of marriage is male-female. Allowing same-sex marriage (SSM hereafter) would be a redefining of the institution. The burden of proof that SSM is necessary and positive is therefore on the supporters of SSM, not the defenders of traditional marriage. I have yet to be convinced that such a redefinition is a societal positive, necessary, or without unintended consequences.

Marriage has historically been as much about family (ie children) as about simply coupledom. SSM does not, in and of itself, produce children without the intervention of a 3rd party who is not part of the union... making "gay marriage" questionable in another sense. (Yes, I know not all straights have children, but in the normal course of events most straight marriages do, and no SSM marriage results in conception without outside aid.) There is a legitimate societal intrest in the production and upbringing of children.

I have been told that there are studies showing that children raised by gay couples do as well as children raised by straight couples; I have to question whether these studies could be agenda-driven, and have yet to be persuaded that they are not. I have been told that children of gay couples are no more likely to grow up to be gay than children of straight couples, but I have yet to see links to these studies. I remain somewhat dubious that a child does as well raised by SSM parents as by a traditional family with both male and female role-models. I have been presented no data on what percentage of gay couples who wish to marry have any intrest in adopting or raising children.

What percentage of the population wishes to be married as SSMs? Certainly not all GLBTs do. Is it one percent? Two percent? Should society force a redefinition of marriage on 90-97% of the population for the sake of the desires of 1 or 2 percent? Not without some very compelling reasons.

Another concern I have falls under Unintended Consequences, or unexpected consequences, or 'where does it go from here'? Before someone brings up the slippery slope fallacy, check my sig: that fallacy does not apply when someone is pushing an agenda, and using one success as a staging point for their next item.

It would be hard to justify maintaining a ban on polygamous/polyanderous/polyamorous/group marriages for long, once SSM is widely legitimized. What further effects might these changes have on the institution of marriage and family in our society? I have seen no studies.

Many gays are content to live their lives and let others do likewise; however there is a certain small but vocal percentage of gays who could be classified as "militant activists". This group is not, and never will be, satisfied with tolerance, but instead wishes to push "forced acceptance". If SSM becomes the law of the land, how long before someone sues the Catholic Church in an attempt to force them to perform gay marriage ceremonies and accept gay couples as "married in the church"?

This militant group concerns me. What is next on their agenda? I have actually had people tell me that I am committing child abuse if I teach my child that homosexuality is wrong. Will the next item on the agenda be an attempt to make teaching/preaching against homosexuality a crime? It has happened in other countries... I've heard there are laws on the books in Canada that could cause a minister to be jailed for preaching against homosexuality, even if there is no advocacy of violence involved (as there usually isn't).

An activist movement is based on movement. When one goal is achieved, another must be found to maintain the momentum and cohesion of the activist organization. The leadership must always agitate that there is yet one more wrong that must be righted, one more bastion of resistance that must be overrun. Witness the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, who seem not to realize that we have probably come as close to achieving MLK's "dream" as we're likely to come, and continue to act as if it is still 1960.

I remain concerned that accepting SSM and making it the law of the land may not be in society's best interests as I see it.
Click to expand...

nice piece of reading here, Thanks you

I still see nothing sound, reasonable, logical, non-bais, non-selfish, non-arrogant, hypercritical, non anti-american reason to "Stop" gay marriage

my favorite two parts are admitting that gay marriage has been around for over 1000 years and in rome but still proclaiming how rare it is. Only rare compared to the majority. and that you think that allowing gay marriage would be "forcing" a definition change LMAO it would "force" anything.

Again you are clearly welcome to you opinion and i appreciate your post, its a good on IMO atleast writing wise but has a bunch of fallacy and fantasy in it. it also hasnt convinced me one bit that denying them marriage is also denying them equal rights. I also never buy into the fantasy that marriage is about children because tons of people married never have them nor is it required. That is a totally out dated assumption that has no barring in the real world today.

as for the slope there is none except on the consenting adults part. I wouldnt care if people want to have polygamy either, its NONE OF MY BUSINESS what others do in marriage and relationships as long as its consensual.

also you cant NOT sue a church in this country based on religious beliefs so that is MEANINGLESS against gay marriage because the fact of the matter is STRAIGHT couples are already turned away by churches so the "potential" to sue already is there but not allowed by law. Allowing gay marriage wouldnt change this one bit.

lastly if we hold true to AMERICA there will never be laws that are against teaching gay is wrong that would change EVERYTHING. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion etc Thats just asinine.

is it illegal to teach women arent equal? minorities arent equal? interracial marriages are wrong now? of course not because this is america, not canada not some other country and that fantasy you are worried about isnt going to happen over gay marriage LMAO

Many of peoples arguments were the same shallow, fearful, selfish and silly ones that people came up for for women and equal rights and interracial marriage. They held no barring then and they certainly hold none now.
 
The Mark said:
I was not speaking of "stopping" it, but of "non-acceptance" of it.

The two are not the same.

And you seem to be under the false impression that this hypothetical religion I presented is one I hold as my own.

I was speaking of "non-acceptance" as just that - not accepting something.

Not actively seeking to prevent it.

My opinions/views on this issue of gay marriage, if they were not already clear, are as follows:

  • Religious marriage between two persons, no matter their sex(s), is a religious matter, and thus should be hashed out between the religions, with no government/secular involvement.
    Indeed, if my understanding is correct, government/secular involvement to support/control/stop such would be unconstitutional.
  • Legal marriage between two persons, no matter their sex(s), should be renamed to "civil union" or some such, perhaps of more than one type, hopefully preventing those who take issue with gay marriages from taking issue.
    After all, if it's a solely secular issue, using religious views to dictate to it would ALSO be unconstitutional.
  • The two should not be connected in anyway, and should be separated if currently connected.
  • A religious marriage should involve whatever religious ceremony appropriate.
  • A legal marriage should only involve the signing of a piece of paper, with appropriate officials and lawyers as necessary.

Edit: Actually, that might not be all that clear....Ah well, we'll see what develops.

And as a side note, you are obviously not a Centrist...
Click to expand...

I know they are different but my question was if you stop it, so i was simply trying to respond to your post saying "WHAT if, What if" and the answer is it wouldnt matter LOL

also i didnt assume anything just answering again to your post. My own religion is against it I just dont care because I understand based on AMERICA its wrong to stop it and not my buisness

thanks for telling me your stance though its insightful

the only problem is marriage is NOT religious unless you want it to be and thats how it is RIGHT NOW. You can get married by religion and the state accepts it or by someone with a license and the stat accepts it so gay marriage wouldnt change that. So renaming them would be discrimination IMO, no need to rename anything. Its discrimination because religion is a secondary thing to marriage not primary. Religion is NOT needed to marry so no need to rename it NOW because of gay marriage. I bow thats not exactly what you said im just making a point, You are for any marriage not with religion being called something else but that didnt happen before why should it happen now.

I cant see any reason why they should be separate, gay or not. Marriage is a marriage period. then you choose yourself to involve religion, family, lifestyle etc no need for separate names for them all when they all share and should share identical rights.

Lastly, explain to me why "YOU" get to decide if "Im" a centrist or not? LMAO I am a centrist/independent because it is supposed to be a party undefined, in the middle, allowed to lean either way depending on the issues. The majority or Reps and Dems, especially Reps dont want you in their group unless you side with them on just about everything. And then if you dont maybe you arent looked at as on the other side but they want to add adjectives on to your title. A type Republican, C type Democrat etc
No thanks Ill stay right here in the middle where the most common sense is.
You even want to kick me out of the middle group based on one issue where my stance is both sides get a win win, doesnt get more middle than that
 
Centrist77 said:
I know they are different but my question was if you stop it, so I was simply trying to respond to your post saying "WHAT if, What if" and the answer is it wouldn’t matter LOL
Click to expand...
Thing is, the "what if" was pointless, as I never supported "stopping" anything. I'm a bit of a libertarian in my views in some ways.

Centrist77 said:
also I didn’t assume anything just answering again to your post. My own religion is against it I just don’t care because I understand based on AMERICA its wrong to stop it and not my business
Click to expand...
Perhaps not, but your post sure gave me the impression you were.

Centrist77 said:
thanks for telling me your stance though its insightful

the only problem is marriage is NOT religious unless you want it to be and that’s how it is RIGHT NOW. You can get married by religion and the state accepts it or by someone with a license and the stat accepts it so gay marriage wouldn’t change that. So renaming them would be discrimination IMO, no need to rename anything. Its discrimination because religion is a secondary thing to marriage not primary. Religion is NOT needed to marry so no need to rename it NOW because of gay marriage. I bow that’s not exactly what you said I’m just making a point, You are for any marriage not with religion being called something else but that didn’t happen before why should it happen now.
Click to expand...
How would renaming all legal marriages to "civil unions" or some such be discrimination? Everyone would have to have one if they wanted the tax breaks, no matter the sex of the partners.

As for the reason I think this necessary, it is because of the people who hold "marriage" as a sacred part of their religion.

If you legislate that "marriage" will be between any two persons, regardless of sex, as opposed to it's current state of only male-female (in most states), it seems you would effectively be legislating a religious matter.

Now, IMO it's just a word, but for some persons that's a big deal.

If you take all religious overtones out by renaming all legal unions, it would seem probable that at least a portion of the resistance would be removed.

Then if a religion wants’ to allow gays to “marry”, they can, and if they don't want to, they don't have to. As is currently the case, I think. But the very word “marriage” is sacred to some, apparently.

I'm saying separate the religious aspect of a marriage/union (and there obviously is one) from the secular aspect.

Centrist77 said:
I cant see any reason why they should be separate, gay or not. Marriage is a marriage period. then you choose yourself to involve religion, family, lifestyle etc no need for separate names for them all when they all share and should share identical rights.
Click to expand...
It is precisely because of the need to preserve rights that I suggest this.

Centrist77 said:
Lastly, explain to me why "YOU" get to decide if "I’m" a centrist or not? LMAO I am a centrist/independent because it is supposed to be a party undefined, in the middle, allowed to lean either way depending on the issues. The majority or Reps and Dems, especially Reps don’t want you in their group unless you side with them on just about everything. And then if you don’t maybe you aren’t looked at as on the other side but they want to add adjectives on to your title. A type Republican, C type Democrat etc
No thanks Ill stay right here in the middle where the most common sense is.
You even want to kick me out of the middle group based on one issue where my stance is both sides get a win, doesn’t get more middle than that
Click to expand...
I don't.

But I had always thought of a centrist as someone who was wholly in the center, with no leanings either way.

Personally, I have leanings to both sides of the center, and I always thought of that as being both left and right, which one depending on the issue.

For that matter, I don't identify with any current party, but classify my views according to "liberal" or "conservative" sides, corresponding with "left" and "right" accordingly.

But meh.
 
1.)As for the reason I think this necessary, it is because of the people who hold "marriage" as a sacred part of their religion.

2.)If you legislate that "marriage" will be between any two persons, regardless of sex, as opposed to it's current state of only male-female (in most states), it seems you would effectively be legislating a religious matter.

Now, IMO it's just a word, but for some persons that's a big deal.

3.) If you take all religious overtones out by renaming all legal unions, it would seem probable that at least a portion of the resistance would be removed.

4.) Then if a religion wants’ to allow gays to “marry”, they can, and if they don't want to, they don't have to. As is currently the case, I think. But the very word “marriage” is sacred to some, apparently.

5.)I'm saying separate the religious aspect of a marriage/union (and there obviously is one) from the secular aspect.

6.)It is precisely because of the need to preserve rights that I suggest this.

I don't.

But I had always thought of a centrist as someone who was wholly in the center, with no leanings either way.

Personally, I have leanings to both sides of the center, and I always thought of that as being both left and right, which one depending on the issue.

For that matter, I don't identify with any current party, but classify my views according to "liberal" or "conservative" sides, corresponding with "left" and "right" accordingly.

But meh.[/QUOTE]

1.) and that wouldnt change it, they can still hold it sacred no matter what others do. so no need to change the name. Theres 100 of things religion holds sacred that others dont but they dont change do they? only to the person who doesnt share those beliefs. Thats why I feel its a BS issue with the word sacred. ONly in the GAY case is it sacred all others no big deal.

2.) no you would NOT be legislating a legal matter unless you are claiming we already are? you can get married WITHOUT religion and Religion can also deny you marriage RIGHT NOW. NThat wouldnt change either

3.) while I agree "resistance" might be removed some, there shouldnt be resistance in the first place, and where resistance would get moved others would want to know why they are being discriminated against and they have to use a different name when it is the same thing.

4.) again nothing would change clinging to the word marriage is just an excuse IMO because of the countless OTHER things people dont cling to religiously. Allowing gay marriage changes nothing accept gives equal rights to those currently being denied them

5.) I know what you are saying but theres no need because there isnt a separate one right now?

6.) rights are NOT being preserved right now, they are being denied, allowing gay marriage would preserve them not the other way around.

7.) oh? i never heard of that definition of a centrist, at least not in the group I belong to that made me decide to be one. They arent people with NO opinions they are people that understand that theres two sides to everything the world is grey and what is best for them might not be best for others. They want most if not all people to have happiness, and equal rights. They understand that ONE decision may need special rules to work right and cant not always be a blanket fix. but again thanks for explaining I get it now

Like you I am also a leaner but with center roots. It funny because it get reinforced all the time in debates because people say im a lefty when talking about Gay rights, healthcare abortion but Im a righty when talking about Guns, military etc

good talks BTW
 
Can I ask, of the people who are against gay marriage, is this because of the religious connotations of the word "marriage"? Or do you believe any form of union between people of the same sex is just wrong -quite aside from any religious leanings you may or may not have?

I'm just wondering how much of this is a religious thing and how much of it isn't...

Thanks

S
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom