• 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 Mark said:
Just to be clear, I think the government should restrict persons access to legal marriage.

Not on the grounds of sexual preference, race, or the like, but on grounds designed to promote stable financial situations, good child-rearing environments, and so forth.

If those grounds excluded some gay couples, I am fairly sure they would exclude a comparable number of hetero couples.

I think they would also INclude some unions of more than two people.
Click to expand...

I wish that was true. But in the real world no one gives a ****.
 
Goshin said:
And once you kick the door open to redefine marriage to accomodate gays, what makes you think you can shut it again before the polygamists, polyamorists, and who knows what else get their foot in?
Click to expand...

Well, if we can't justify restraining their freedom on the basis of societal good or other people's individual liberties, we can't keep that door closed.

The reality is that right now our society would suffer greatly from legalization of polygamy.

If that situation changes, so too will the results of the question itself.

When and if polygamy is no longer a significant degradation of our society or someone else's individual rights, it shouldn't be prohibited.

We're not remotely close to that today though. I think the argument can safely be made that it would cause a significant issue in our culture, and therefore - for right now at least (and maybe forever) - it should remain illegal.

mac said:
What happens when groups begin trying to redefine pedophilia? Is a 22 year old student sleeping with a willing 15 year old student pedophilia? There are a lot of variables in there that can be "redefined".
Click to expand...

Pedophilia infringes on other people's individual rights. It's also destructive for our society.

roguenuke said:
I still feel bad for those people who are truly polyamorous, however, since they don't seem to really be clamoring for polygamy to be legal anyway, it probably isn't a big deal.
Click to expand...

I also sympathize with people that harm no one else, but simply share a different world view than the mainstream of society.

I think that this is one of many cases where as long as it's done somewhat beneath the pale, we tend to turn a blind eye to it. Adultery is another example. When was the last time you actually saw someone prosecuted for adultery?

I think that usually, unless someone is causing a significant problem because of it, it gets ignored by our moral and legal system.

That's probably not ideal, but it works okay for the most-part.

mac said:
Well, there you go....you don't think homosexuality infringes on anyone else's rights, while others do.
Click to expand...

Now this would be an interesting conversation.

In what way does someone's private sexuality infringe on anyone else's rights?
 
roguenuke said:
As I've said there is as much proof that homosexual marriage can benefit society as heterosexual marriage does, since the only difference is the genders of the people involved in the marriage. The only direct benefit that can't come is increasing the chances that a child born between two people in a relationship is raised by the biological mother and father. However, since I have already shown how not all the benefits to society have to apply or even legally can apply (in some cases) to all heterosexual marriages, then the ability to actually reproduce cannot be used against homosexuals. All the other benefits of marriage to society can come from at least a few homosexual couples. The benefits to society by allowing homosexuals' the ability to marry is no different than those from heterosexuals, so the pro-gm proof is already there. We have our proof.
Click to expand...

You have proved it to yourselves, not to anyone else. There are other factors beyond impact to the individual affected family or household. Women's Suffrage has had both positive and negative impact on society though we all feel that it was the right thing to do. There have been negative impacts to the economy, to the environment and to the family structure in America directly resulting from the two worker household that can't be disregarded. None of this impact was ever considered when discussing women's rights in America and yet there they are. Now, before you get all fired up and call me a sexist pig, I only bring this up to highlight the chance of unforeseen impacts on society. I am in no way suggesting a reversal of women's rights.
 
Last edited:
Goshin said:
Okay, but you DO think that gov't has a right to restrict some people's access to legal marriage, as long as it is some group you have reservations about? That's what it is sounding like... you're for SSM but have reservations about polygamy as a viable legal form of marriage in the USA. That would be a form of denying marriage benefits to a minority based on your individual viewpoint that their form of marriage might be a problem of some kind... which isn't that different a viewpoint than many anti-SSM's view of gay marriage.
Click to expand...

I can give arguements of actual complications and why it could be reasonable to assume that more than a few people might try to defraud the government when dealing with polygamy. I would not automatically be against it, but there is a reasonable, quantifiable purpose in weighing the benefits to the problems that would come with polygamy. It is easy to say that every marriage should automatically be allowed, but we must be realistic. Some restrictions are necessary to protect people and/or ensure that the government does not take on more than it should. Anti-SSM would need a similar argument as to why there would be more complications from a homosexual marriage than from a heterosexual one just due to the sexuality difference.
 
1069 said:
Say what? :lol:
Which individual or organization in government would you trust to be the unbiased arbiter of who should and should not be allowed to get married?
Click to expand...
No one.

Did you read my post?

1069 said:
And do you realize how costly it would be to have a government entity charged with judging each individual potential marriage and deciding whether or not to allow it?
Click to expand...
As no one would be, it wouldn't be an issue.

However, the entity charged with determining which party got the varied tax benefits depending on their specific legal union (however that was laid out) would probably be somewhat costly.

But really, I was hoping it would include some reforms for the current system in such a change. A hope doomed to never be fulfilled, probably.

1069 said:
Do you realize how many marriages take place in our country each and every day?
Click to expand...
No. But it’s probably in the tens or hundreds of thousands.
 
Alastor said:
Well, if we can't justify restraining their freedom on the basis of societal good or other people's individual liberties, we can't keep that door closed.

The reality is that right now our society would suffer greatly from legalization of polygamy.

If that situation changes, so too will the results of the question itself.

When and if polygamy is no longer a significant degradation of our society or someone else's individual rights, it shouldn't be prohibited.

We're not remotely close to that today though. I think the argument can safely be made that it would cause a significant issue in our culture, and therefore - for right now at least (and maybe forever) - it should remain illegal.



Pedophilia infringes on other people's individual rights. It's also destructive for our society.



I also sympathize with people that harm no one else, but simply share a different world view than the mainstream of society.

I think that this is one of many cases where as long as it's done somewhat beneath the pale, we tend to turn a blind eye to it. Adultery is another example. When was the last time you actually saw someone prosecuted for adultery?

I think that usually, unless someone is causing a significant problem because of it, it gets ignored by our moral and legal system.

That's probably not ideal, but it works okay for the most-part.



Now this would be an interesting conversation.

In what way does someone's private sexuality infringe on anyone else's rights?
Click to expand...

If we were talking about private sexuality, it would have no impact. We are talking about very public sexuality.
 
Alastor said:
Pedophilia infringes on other people's individual rights. It's also destructive to society
Click to expand...

Of course your right. My point is if we can redefine marriage, we can redefine pedophilia as well as anything else. Why would anyone want to? For the same reasons they want to redefine marriage...for their own benefit.
 
mac said:
If we were talking about private sexuality, it would have no impact. We are talking about very public sexuality.
Click to expand...

Gays can already hold hands and kiss each other. :confused:
 
mac said:
Of course your right. My point is if we can redefine marriage, we can redefine pedophilia as well as anything else. Why would anyone want to? For the same reasons they want to redefine marriage...for their own benefit.
Click to expand...

Technically, pedophilia is the attraction to pre-pubescent children.

BTW, we have redenfined statuatory rape laws. Jerry Lee Lewis couldn't marry his thirteen year old cousin today.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
Gays can already hold hands and kiss each other. :confused:
Click to expand...

Once homosexuality becomes accepted by the state and federal governments then it will be taught in civics classes to children of parents who will take great offense to having their children taught morality by public school teachers which is in direct opposition to their own personal beliefs. These teachers will then utilize (as they already do in some places) the separation of church and state to defend their rights to do so. This is but one of the many problems I see arising. It's a little more complicated than a couple of guys holding hands.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
Technically, pedophilia is the attraction to pre-pubescent children.

BTW, we have redenfined statuatory rape laws. Jerry Lee Lewis couldn't marry his thirteen year old cousin today.
Click to expand...

I beleive in some states it's legal for a 13 year old to marry with parental consent. I'm trying to temember which states..Maryland...West Viriginia?
 
mac said:
Once homosexuality becomes accepted by the state and federal governments then it will be taught in civics classes to children of parents who will take great offense to having their children taught morality by public school teachers which is in direct opposition to their own personal beliefs. These teachers will then utilize (as they already do in some places) the separation of church and state to defend their rights to do so. This is but one of the many problems I see arising. It's a little more complicated than a couple of guys holding hands.
Click to expand...

You are afraid that a civics class is going to make your kids gay? Isn't that the fear of teaching that the government doesn't discriminate against homosexuals? You can teach your kid to discriminate on your own dime. Don't expect the taxpayers to do it. If it the law, it will be taught. The law won't say, "Hey kids, it's acceptable to be gay. Give it a try."
 
mac said:
I beleive in some states it's legal for a 13 year old to marry with parental consent. I'm trying to temember which states..Maryland...West Viriginia?
Click to expand...

Exactly, it changes from state to state. Language evolves. Definitions change.
 
roguenuke said:
I can give arguements of actual complications and why it could be reasonable to assume that more than a few people might try to defraud the government when dealing with polygamy. I would not automatically be against it, but there is a reasonable, quantifiable purpose in weighing the benefits to the problems that would come with polygamy. It is easy to say that every marriage should automatically be allowed, but we must be realistic. Some restrictions are necessary to protect people and/or ensure that the government does not take on more than it should. Anti-SSM would need a similar argument as to why there would be more complications from a homosexual marriage than from a heterosexual one just due to the sexuality difference.
Click to expand...


Ah, I see. It's okay for gov't to restrict access to marriage as long as it does so by criteria that you approve of. Got it.
 
mac said:
Once homosexuality becomes accepted by the state and federal governments then it will be taught in civics classes to children of parents who will take great offense to having their children taught morality by public school teachers which is in direct opposition to their own personal beliefs. These teachers will then utilize (as they already do in some places) the separation of church and state to defend their rights to do so. This is but one of the many problems I see arising. It's a little more complicated than a couple of guys holding hands.
Click to expand...

First, what exactly are you imagining that they will be teaching children in school about homosexuality? That it is real? That it is okay? It is already okay to be homosexual according to US law.

And the same argument could be used about many other things that children may be taught in school or come into contact with in school. In fact, there are a lot of children's parents who still do not like their children being taught about evolution.
 
Goshin said:
Ah, I see. It's okay for gov't to restrict access to marriage as long as it does so by criteria that you approve of. Got it.
Click to expand...

You say that like it's a bad thing.
 
Goshin said:
Ah, I see. It's okay for gov't to restrict access to marriage as long as it does so by criteria that you approve of. Got it.
Click to expand...

No. The criteria should be fair. It shouldn't be arbitrarily decided by what might be right or wrong. A good, fair criteria is harm to people or property. Financial considerations are fair, especially when we are talking about the government. However, there are several problems in themselves with just allowing multiple marriages without considering the consequences. Another to consider would be, if the government said today, that okay, anyone can marry as many people as they want. Then a girl goes out and marries 4 guys, but doesn't tell her husbands about each other. She gets pregnant and dies during childbirth. Who's the father? Who has legal right to inherit her property? Who gets the baby? What about the other guys who all thought they were about to be a daddy, and with good reason, since their wife was pregnant?

In fact, I have said multiple times that I am not against polygamy, but would rather it be looked into before automatically made legal. From a logical standpoint, marriage becomes more complicated, especially when talking about civil marriage, the more people that the contract involves.
 
mac said:
That would only be true if homosexuals had no more choice over their sexual preference than Chinese do over their ancestry.
Click to expand...

Correct. And since homosexuality cannot be determined either way, we have to go with what homosexuals say about the subject. I have known my gays and every single one said that they just always felt attracted to men. Not one said it was a choice. Not one... So, unless you can prove beyond a doubt that they are making a choice, you have no logical or rational argument what so ever. :)
 
Was that video a troll attempt?
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by mac
Once homosexuality becomes accepted by the state and federal governments then it will be taught in civics classes to children of parents who will take great offense to having their children taught morality by public school teachers which is in direct opposition to their own personal beliefs. These teachers will then utilize (as they already do in some places) the separation of church and state to defend their rights to do so. This is but one of the many problems I see arising. It's a little more complicated than a couple of guys holding hands.
Click to expand...

WHAT?! If it is taught at all, it would be taught as a Civil Rights Issue much the way that the feminist movements of the 20's and 60's were, or the Black Civil Rights Movements of the 50' and 60's were. We don't teach kids that it is OK to be black, just that all people deserve equal rights, and that this was not done in the past until it was challenged and then changed. We don't morality about any issue, we teach the facts about history to students. I am sensing that you are a little extreme in your ideas though, so that might be part of the issue.
 
Bodhisattva said:
WHAT?! If it is taught at all, it would be taught as a Civil Rights Issue much the way that the feminist movements of the 20's and 60's were, or the Black Civil Rights Movements of the 50' and 60's were. We don't teach kids that it is OK to be black, just that all people deserve equal rights, and that this was not done in the past until it was challenged and then changed. We don't morality about any issue, we teach the facts about history to students. I am sensing that you are a little extreme in your ideas though, so that might be part of the issue.
Click to expand...

That isn't true. There is allready sensitivity training being introduced in the California and Massachussets school systems. These are issues that tackle morality. I am no more extreme in my views than you are in yours. You have certainly not been open to ideas throughout this discussion, have you?
 
Bodhisattva said:
Correct. And since homosexuality cannot be determined either way, we have to go with what homosexuals say about the subject. I have known my gays and every single one said that they just always felt attracted to men. Not one said it was a choice. Not one... So, unless you can prove beyond a doubt that they are making a choice, you have no logical or rational argument what so ever. :)
Click to expand...

That argument has no more basis than the pedophile or ax murder who says they didn't have a choice.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom