• 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.
BCR said:
The fact that people in America and all around the world think they a have a right to tell people who they can get married to is absolutely ridiculous.
Click to expand...

If marriage is a secular and civil institution as you argue, then it is absolutely within the State's prerogatives to regulate it.
 
mac said:
So it's your assertion that the government has no right to regulate what people do? Society sets standards on quite a few issues, marriage is just one of them. Let me ask you a question: If you're walking through the park with your kids and you turn a corner to discover some people having sex on a park bench. Does that affect you? Does that affect your kids? Do you have any right in saying that it is wrong for people to have sex in public? Say you're sitting down to dinner and some folks at the table next to you are speaking loudly using words you find offensive. Does that affect you?

There are a huge number of mental conditions and disorders that are considered by the mental health community to be directly caused by entirely external factors. To say that gay marriage WILL NOT have an affect on people is an assumption and only an assumption. You have no proof to back that up. There are all kind of things I could dream up based on the outcomes of other major changes in society that had results no one expected.

The majority of the worlds population has been opposed to gay marriage throughout the history of the species. Marginalizing their beliefs and opinions on the issue makes you every bit as bigoted and ignorant as you claim they are.



This is simply false. The evidence in most studies says no such thing.
Click to expand...

First off if one is effected by a Gay couple it is more than likely because they are intolerant of their life style. Of course if I see a couple having sex on a bench it is going to effect me but to compare that to homosexuality is completely illogical. It can be said some people are effected by interacial marriage but that doesn't make it wrong, I think it goes the same for gay marriage. I would also like to here what your explanation is for Gay children and the cases where twins were seperated at birth to only be reunited 21 years later, also they are gay what a crazy coincidence. For you to say I am as bigoted as the opposers for marginalizing others beliefs is also ridicoulous. When one's beliefs have a negative effect on a whole other populations life, that's when there is a problem and gay marriage fits into this case.

I corrected myself in my latest post "I suppose it is better to say your sexuality is something that is more than likely out of your control. " I would like you to find me a study that goes against what I said.
 
mac said:
You, Sir, have rendered me speechless.
Click to expand...

I'm good at that. :2razz:

A good argument is a good argument. I have consistently agreed with your position on the government regulating things based on the beliefs and positions of Americans... even if I disagree with those beliefs and positions. Currently, US voters have voted down GM, consistently. I disagree with this, and I have many reasons why and why I believe voters have made the choice that they have made. However, I do not want to take the power to make these kinds of decisions away from the public.
 
Last edited:
BCR said:
First off if one is effected by a Gay couple it is more than likely because they are intolerant of their life style. Of course if I see a couple having sex on a bench it is going to effect me but to compare that to homosexuality is completely illogical. It can be said some people are effected by interacial marriage but that doesn't make it wrong, I think it goes the same for gay marriage. I would also like to here what your explanation is for Gay children and the cases where twins were seperated at birth to only be reunited 21 years later, also they are gay what a crazy coincidence. For you to say I am as bigoted as the opposers for marginalizing others beliefs is also ridicoulous. When one's beliefs have a negative effect on a whole other populations life, that's when there is a problem and gay marriage fits into this case.

I corrected myself in my latest post "I suppose it is better to say your sexuality is something that is more than likely out of your control. " I would like you to find me a study that goes against what I said.
Click to expand...

Please, please, PLEASE show me the study where educated people separated twins at birth, kept them seperate for 21 years, reunited them and then discovered they were both gay. Please show me a study that says sexuality is "more than likely" to be out of your control.

I wasn't comparing homosexuality to any thing or any behavior. What I was doing was showing that your assumption that, because YOU feel it to be a legitimate behavior, it will have no affect on society as a whole. The fact is, everything has an affect on society. I feel that if the government makes such a decision in direct opposition to the voters and in direct opposition to every mainstream religion on earth, that the repercussions would be severe. "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" is not the way to go on an issue with such an emotional and societal impact.
 
mac said:
Please show me a study that says sexuality is "more than likely" to be out of your control.
Click to expand...

Are you seriously insinuating that people are in control of their sexuality? Because I'd love to hear about your thought process during the moment when you CHOSE to be attracted to whichever sex you're attracted to. I never chose that. Instead, I simply found myself experiencing attraction. Whether that was caused by genes, pre-natal hormones, environmental factors, brain structure, or any of the other possible factors is irrelevant. I had no control over it.
 
Last edited:
CaptainCourtesy said:
Of course I've made a claim. My claim is that there is a difference between reading God's word and understanding God's word. And without context, words and concepts are meaningless.
Click to expand...

I read and understand the words just fine. Please feel free to point out where I have misunderstood or misquoted scripture without context? I can point out specific instances where others have.
 
I never said it was a study..I actually saw it on 20/20. ( When I say this I am speaking of the two brothers who never knew each other.)

YouTube - 20/20- Gay Gene

I think it is obvious these people are gay because of a reason out of their control. If this is so, which it looks like it is then it doesn't matter what the majority feels or if it effects a large amount of the religions beliefs., it ought to be legalized.

Also my mistake, they were not twins but brothers who never knew each other.
 
Last edited:
sweEt Mauritius said:
Are you seriously insinuating that people are in control of their sexuality? Because I'd love to hear about your thought process during the moment when you CHOSE to be attracted to whichever sex you're attracted to. I never chose that. Instead, I simply found myself experiencing attraction. Whether that was caused by genes, pre-natal hormones, environmental factors, brain structure, or any of the other possible factors is irrelevant. I had no control over it.
Click to expand...

I'm not insinuating anything. I was asking a question. A great majority of the folks that I have communicated with that are in support of gay marriage say that the studies indicate that people are born gay, when in fact there is no study that says that. every study I have read on homosexuality concludes that homosexuality MAY be caused by some combination of genetics or environmental factors but also usually state no proof exists. My point is that people who say the studies say this, that or the other thing should read and understand them first.

Asking me when I decided I was heterosexual as a point that there is no choice to being homosexual usually holds no validity with heterosexuals. Heterosexuals consider heterosexual intercourse to be natural while homosexual intercourse is unnatural. Therefore, there is no need to legitimize heterosexuality to refute the validity of homosexuality.

The argument that environmental factors may cause homosexuality is very valid in my view. However it doesn't in and of itself validate homosexuality, for me personally, since there are a great many mental disorders which are said to be caused by environmental factors. Don't take that to mean I think homosexuality is a mental disorder, I don't necessarily. I'm sure if I were homosexual I would have a different view on that. My personal religious views are not a strong enough factor for me to rely on in opposition to gay marriage so I've tried to find away to convince myself that it is valid through reading studies on the issue. Personally, I do not feel that homosexuality or gay marriage will affect me personally in anyway, however I do believe it will have some pretty serious affects on our society. Maybe good effects, maybe bad. Time will tell. That is more my concern than anything, and is the only reason I oppose it.

Since homosexuals can live "marriage-like" lifestyles now, and are as protected by hate laws and discrimination laws as are anyone else, I don't see that legalizing marriage would provide any benefit worthy of the potential risks involved with changing the societal definition of marriage.
 
BCR said:
I never said it was a study..I actually saw it on 20/20. ( When I say this I am speaking of the two brothers who never knew each other.)

YouTube - 20/20- Gay Gene

I think it is obvious these people are gay because of a reason out of their control. If this is so, which it looks like it is then it doesn't matter what the majority feels or if it effects a large amount of the religions beliefs., it ought to be legalized.

Also my mistake, they were not twins but brothers who never knew each other.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to dismiss this out of hand, but when the only person that they interviewed in opposition was an evangelical, you have to understand that there is some bias there....There were no real details of the the lives of the brothers discussed so that tells me that those details would have altered a pretty biased approach to the issue. Also, no scientific proof was offered.
 
sweEt Mauritius said:
Are you seriously insinuating that people are in control of their sexuality? Because I'd love to hear about your thought process during the moment when you CHOSE to be attracted to whichever sex you're attracted to. I never chose that. Instead, I simply found myself experiencing attraction. Whether that was caused by genes, pre-natal hormones, environmental factors, brain structure, or any of the other possible factors is irrelevant. I had no control over it.
Click to expand...

Indeed. I don't care if homosexuality is genetic or not. I just feel it's something that the government should have no say over.
 
samsmart said:
Indeed. I don't care if homosexuality is genetic or not. I just feel it's something that the government should have no say over.
Click to expand...

How about polygamy or other forms of plural marriage? Should the government have a say in that?
 
Blackdog said:
I read and understand the words just fine. Please feel free to point out where I have misunderstood or misquoted scripture without context? I can point out specific instances where others have.
Click to expand...

You are implying that you take the literal word of scripture and apply it to today. I am saying that I take the literal word of scripture, understand the historical context and, with that in mind, apply it to today. We interpret the bible differently.
 
mac said:
How about polygamy or other forms of plural marriage? Should the government have a say in that?
Click to expand...

I believe that the government should have the right to regulate all forms of marriage based on the following factors... in no particular order:
1) Voter beliefs/desires.
2) Empirical evidence.
3) Benefit/cost to society, considering both quantitate and qualitative factors.

In MY world, numbers 1 and 3 will be based on number 2. In that scenario, GM has been shown to be equal to straight marriage. Also, in that scenario, plural marriage has been shown to be sorely lacking.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I believe that the government should have the right to regulate all forms of marriage based on the following factors... in no particular order:
1) Voter beliefs/desires.
2) Empirical evidence.
3) Benefit/cost to society, considering both quantitate and qualitative factors.

In MY world, numbers 1 and 3 will be based on number 2. In that scenario, GM has been shown to be equal to straight marriage. Also, in that scenario, plural marriage has been shown to be sorely lacking.
Click to expand...

Sorely lacking what? Polygamists tend to be very family oriented....what's wrong with it? It's not my thing, I've got my hands full with one wife and frankly, the idea of a second is terrifying. But just because it's not good for my family, who am I to say it can't work for someone else?
 
mac said:
I'm not going to dismiss this out of hand, but when the only person that they interviewed in opposition was an evangelical, you have to understand that there is some bias there....There were no real details of the the lives of the brothers discussed so that tells me that those details would have altered a pretty biased approach to the issue. Also, no scientific proof was offered.
Click to expand...

Yes no proof was offered but you did hear a genetic biologists professional opinion. I have yet to see a scientist say "It is a learned process and biology has no place in it". The only ones saying that are typically unqualified religious people.
 
mac said:
Sorely lacking what? Polygamists tend to be very family oriented....what's wrong with it? It's not my thing, I've got my hands full with one wife and frankly, the idea of a second is terrifying. But just because it's not good for my family, who am I to say it can't work for someone else?
Click to expand...

I need to consolidate my posts into one thread. Someone on the other GM thread was questioning whether there was more than one study on the effects of gay parents on children... all which I posted here. Now you are wondering about the negatives of polygamy... of which I posted on the other thread. I'll repost it here for your perusal.

CaptainCourtesy said:
But, you see, this entire, "if we allow homosexual marriage, polygamy is next" argument is extraordinarily weak, considering that the similarities between the two do not exist. Allow me to explain from both an individual and a societal standpoint.

First. let us take a look at the difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals. The striking difference is obvious. Homosexuals have a sexual orientation towards those of the same sex, whereas heterosexuals have a sexual orientation towards those of the opposite sex. Why would a heterosexual woman want to marry a man? Sexual orientation. Why would a homosexual man want to marry a man? Sexual orientation. Clearly, from an individual standpoint, this is a, if not the main reason for one wanting to marry a specific other. Love, attraction, emotion. Now, this does not justify gay marriage being validated, and, in fact is a weak argument that I never make. Love, attraction, and emotion does not benefit the state, which is why marriage exists. However, polygamy does not fit well in the criteria that I have identified. There is no polygamous sexual orientation. Polygamy is, typically, a heterosexual orientation, covered already. However, being that there is no polygamous sexual orientation, using this, a mainstay of the individual reason for marriage, will not work or apply. Therefore, polygamy from an individual standpoint, does not meet the same criteria for marriage as do homosexuals or heterosexuals. Lack of orientation.

Now, we move into the societal realm. Government supports marriage for a few reasons. The productive rearing of children is most important. Creating a stable family life is also key: it adds to the positive potential for healthy children, but it also creates healthy adults. There is plenty of evidence to support the theory that those who live in a healthy, stable, committed relationship, are happier, healthier, and are more productive members of society. These are all things that benefit the state. Research shows that, regardless of sexual orientation, gay or straight, folks who live in these kinds of committed relationships, do better, and rear children better, than those who do not. This is regardless of sexual orientation. This is the second piece of the argument that will, eventually win the day for gay marriage. Polygamy does not offer the same benefits. And the answer to "why" is simple, and is psychological in nature. Jealousy, rivalry, and inconsistency. Just like my argument that psychology cannot be separated from economics, hence, because of greed, pure forms of both socialism and libertarianism are destined to be complete failures, neither can human psychology be separated from this issue. What is the number one cause of divorce? Adultery. Why? Jealousy and rivalry. In a multi-partner marriage, it would be impossible for their not to be some sort of hierarchy, and even if this is agreed upon, one cannot eliminate one's emotions. With this type of emotional instability at the familial structure's core, a healthy, committed relationship, similar to that of a single partner marriage, could not be obtained. Further, the inconsistency in caretaking responsibilities and in child rearing responsibilities, compounded by the hierarchies and rivalries will harm the children, affecting their functioning. We already see some of this in divorced families, where inconsistent rules, non-existent co-parenting, and rivalries, negatively affect children.

Lastly, though there is plenty of research that supports both heterosexual and homosexual unions as being beneficial, there is none that supports polygamy.

All of this shows how there is not correlation nor slippery slope from homosexual to polygamous marriage. Polygamy, for the reasons I identified, is not only a very different animal than homosexual marriage, but has none of the similar benefits to the state that the government currently sees marriage as.

Polygamy as a reaction to homosexual marriage is a smokescreen and an invalid comparison.
Click to expand...

Now, also remember. We have research that demonstrates the benefits of gay partnerships both to the individuals and children. There is no such research that demonstrates the same for plural marriage.
 
but polygamous marriages were practised for most of human history, therefore it must be good :roll:
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I need to consolidate my posts into one thread. Someone on the other GM thread was questioning whether there was more than one study on the effects of gay parents on children... all which I posted here. Now you are wondering about the negatives of polygamy... of which I posted on the other thread. I'll repost it here for your perusal.



Now, also remember. We have research that demonstrates the benefits of gay partnerships both to the individuals and children. There is no such research that demonstrates the same for plural marriage.
Click to expand...

I don't argue the research that you posted regarding homosexual child rearing. I'm wondering a bit about your conclusions on polygamy though? Is this based on research and studies as your stance on gm is? Or are they your own assumptions?

I'm not saying that in reality gm and pm are in the same boat, however, as an argument to what the government should have a role in it is a valid point. There are certainly those that would want pm legalized and I am sure that they will use gm as precedence for redefining marriage.
 
mac said:
I don't argue the research that you posted regarding homosexual child rearing. I'm wondering a bit about your conclusions on polygamy though? Is this based on research and studies as your stance on gm is? Or are they your own assumptions?
Click to expand...


For the most part, they are extrapolations based on research in regards to relationships, straight marriage, gay marriage, definitions of sexual orientation, governmental/societal needs, and psychology around families, relationships, and child rearing. There is some research on polygamous relationships involved, also.

I'm not saying that in reality gm and pm are in the same boat, however, as an argument to what the government should have a role in it is a valid point. There are certainly those that would want pm legalized and I am sure that they will use gm as precedence for redefining marriage.
Click to expand...

You could be correct about that, however, as you have said, repeatedly, it is up to the voters to make this decision. Since polygamy is illegal, and there is no consideration that there is any medical, genetic, psychological, or biological component to polygamy, not only will the votes fall short, but the research does not support it. My entire point is comparing GM with PM is like comparing apples and airplanes. They are very different situations, whereas GM and traditional marriage are very similar.
 
Last edited:
mac said:
How about polygamy or other forms of plural marriage? Should the government have a say in that?
Click to expand...

I don't think so. I'm all for polygamous and polyandrous marriages being allowed. People should be able to have whatever kind of relationships they are comfortable with. And, should someone in a relationship ever become uncomfortable with it, they should be able to leave it easily.
 
samsmart said:
I don't think so. I'm all for polygamous and polyandrous marriages being allowed. People should be able to have whatever kind of relationships they are comfortable with. And, should someone in a relationship ever become uncomfortable with it, they should be able to leave it easily.
Click to expand...

Marry who, what, where and how many you want, whenever you want, and split when you feel like it. Awesome! Where do I sign up??
 
In short: Marriage to whoever is none of the governments business, church doctrines is none of the governments business. The constitution is everyone's business.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
You are implying that you take the literal word of scripture and apply it to today. I am saying that I take the literal word of scripture, understand the historical context and, with that in mind, apply it to today. We interpret the bible differently.
Click to expand...

The historical context does not really change anything as far as the NT goes. I do the same with the OT, as it is a good reference to what God wants for us. You are not interpreting it differently. You are taking what you want and leaving the rest.

If you could give me an example? Like mine involving the OT. I ask because maybe I am missing something.
 
Last edited:
deltabtry said:
In short: Marriage to whoever is none of the governments business, church doctrines is none of the governments business. The constitution is everyone's business.
Click to expand...

I agree, Churches have an absolute right to deny marriage to gays. I understand someone being against Gay marriage at a church level but that is completely different than marriage at a government level.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom