• 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.
roguenuke said:
A good portion of society did not find interracial marriage acceptable. .
Click to expand...

At the time of Loving vs Virginia the polls were running around 70% against interracial marriage.
 
winston53660 said:
At the time of Loving vs Virginia the polls were running around 70% against interracial marriage.
Click to expand...

I really have been having trouble finding accurate numbers on this, with links. I know that in some states, especially in the South, it was definitely at those percentages, but I have seen some polls that have it closer to 50/50 for/against. I know that acceptance of homosexual marriage seems to mirror acceptance of interracial marriage back during that time.
 
roguenuke said:
I really have been having trouble finding accurate numbers on this, with links. I know that in some states, especially in the South, it was definitely at those percentages, but I have seen some polls that have it closer to 50/50 for/against. I know that acceptance of homosexual marriage seems to mirror acceptance of interracial marriage back during that time.
Click to expand...


It was a gallup poll I think and it was national. Here is a contemporary summation from gallup.

Most Americans Approve of Interracial Marriages

Sorry I'm sitting in a bar with a really slow wifi connection otherwise I would find the exact poll I was thinking of.
 
roguenuke said:
The benefits of marriage are given by the government. We are talking about civil marriage in this discussion. It doesn't matter what a religion or certain people wish to accept/recognize as marriage. It matters that the laws governing marriage are treat people equally. So I'll ask again, if a state, let's say Utah, decides that they want to deny marriage to couples of different religions, would it be okay? Would it be okay if a state denied marriage to couples who weren't religious?
Click to expand...

Wheather or nor a person is religious isn't likely to become a problem, for the religious, since marriage between man and woman doesn't viloate their fundamental principle. But no, assuming the attempt was made to so restrict marriage, I wouldn't support it.

BTW, I'll add that marriage is not fully in the hands of what society finds acceptable. A good portion of society did not find interracial marriage acceptable. Interracial marriage was deemed to be protected because marriage is a right and denying it due to race is discrimination. The pro-GM side is saying that it is also discrimination to deny it to homosexuals, because there is no reasonable state/government interest in making restrictions on the gender of the person another is allowed to marry.
Click to expand...

This stance assumes that one is born gay as they are born black, white, or other. If that were indeed true, I would support it. Right now, I don't beleive there is evidence to support the "born gay" argument. As I said before, if I am proven wrong on this, I would gladly support it.
 
Last edited:
mac said:
Wheather or nor a person is religious isn't likely to become a problem, for the religious, since marriage between man and woman doesn't viloate their fundamental principle.



This stance assumes that one is born gay as they are born black, white, or other. If that were indeed true, I would support it. Right now, I don't beleive there is evidence to support the "born gay" argument. As I said before, if I am proven wrong on this, I would gladly support it.
Click to expand...


Sexual orientation is innate and can no more be changed than race.
This should be self-evident to all thinking people.
Can you change your sexual orientation at will?
If not, then it seems self-evident that nobody else can, either.
 
winston53660 said:
At the time of Loving vs Virginia the polls were running around 70% against interracial marriage.
Click to expand...

I think you can further refine that. The majority of society didn't see interracial marraiges between other than whites and blacks as much of an issue. For example, European and Asian, or Native American marriages were not greatly objected too. This speaks to the specific conflict between white and black Americans at that time.
 
mac said:
There are many commonly accepted aspects of modern society that would have been considered science fiction 50, 100, or 1000 years ago. You have no way of knowing, now, what will occur in the future or what won't.
Click to expand...

Obviously... but that is not the point. The point is that to be against something because you think that it might have a negative effect in a 1,000 years is ridiculous. Your argument is really that you are not against gay marriage, it is that you are against the future. Throwing away a particular picture might, in 50 years, not allow some loved one to find their way back to the family after they lost part of the memory too during a horrific Lego accident. The list of examples is endless....
 
1069 said:
Sexual orientation is innate and can no more be changed than race.
This should be self-evident to all thinking people.
Can you change your sexual orientation at will?
If not, then it seems self-evident that nobody else can, either.
Click to expand...

Your opinion. You are assuming that since that's how you see it, no one should have a right to view it differently.
 
mac said:
Your opinion. You are assuming that since that's how you see it, no one should have a right to view it differently.
Click to expand...

Why should you assume others have the capacity to change their sexual orientation at will, when you can not?
What kind of sense does that make? :confused:

Do you also assume they can change skin color at will?
 
1069 said:
Why should you assume others have the capacity to change their sexual orientation at will, when you can not?
What kind of sense does that make? :confused:

Do you also assume they can change skin color at will?
Click to expand...

Have you ever been to a Turkish prison?
 
mac said:
Have you ever been to a Turkish prison?
Click to expand...

That's not changing orientation. That's changing behavior. Heterosexuals engaging in homosexual behavior because of power and availability. Doesn't change their sexual orientation at all.
 
I didn't choose to find women attractive, I just do. Saying sexual orientation is a choice doesn't make much sense to me.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
That's not changing orientation. That's changing behavior. Heterosexuals engaging in homosexual behavior because of power and availability. Doesn't change their sexual orientation at all.
Click to expand...

Maybe. But how do you know it can't be changed? Have you tried to change yours? If you can't prove what "caused" an orientation, how can you prove it can't be changed? How can you prove that greater acceptance, lack of associated stigma, and greater prevalance of homosexuality in the developing environment of children will not have an impact on the chances of developing into a homosexual? Studies that indicate that children raised by homosexuals can develop into heterosexual isn't enough to prove that, since there have been no societies that have fully embraced homosexuality for more than a generation. Long term effect is unknown.
 
Last edited:
Anarcho-fascist said:
I didn't choose to find women attractive, I just do. Saying sexual orientation is a choice doesn't make much sense to me.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. Though there is no emprical evidence that proves what causes one's sexual orientation, this makes the most sense. It's kinda like asking you why your favorite food is your favorite food.
 
mac said:
Maybe. But how do you know it can't be changed? Have you tried to change yours? If you can't prove what "caused" an orientation, how can you prove it can't be changed? How can you prove that greater acceptance, lack of associated stigma, and greater prevalance of homosexuality in the developing environment of children will not have an impact on the chances of developing into a homosexual? Studies that indicate that children raised by homosexuals can develop into heterosexual isn't enough to prove that, since there have been no societies that have fully embraced homosexuality for more than a generation. Long term affect is unknown.
Click to expand...

You keep going with the "negative societal effect" argument. I haven't addressed it, because I dismiss it as narrow-minded. All societal changes have positive and negative effects. A good gauge on the levels of these on society as a whole, is looking at how this effects smaller groups. Families would be one small group to explore. Research certainly shows that gay parents do NOT produce gay children any more than straight parents. Just like gay parents produce straight children at the same levels as straight parents. Your "negative societal effect" argument is completely without foundation, whereas the opposite has some data to support it.

In as far as whether sexual orientation can be changed, no, I've never seen it. I've seen sexual BEHAVIOR change, but not orientation. I've argued this issue with Jerry for years.
 
mac said:
Wheather or nor a person is religious isn't likely to become a problem, for the religious, since marriage between man and woman doesn't viloate their fundamental principle. But no, assuming the attempt was made to so restrict marriage, I wouldn't support it.



This stance assumes that one is born gay as they are born black, white, or other. If that were indeed true, I would support it. Right now, I don't beleive there is evidence to support the "born gay" argument. As I said before, if I am proven wrong on this, I would gladly support it.
Click to expand...

So you don't see the hypocrisy in saying that you are against rules that would restrict marriage according to religious beliefs, when religion is most definitely a choice, but that you are not against rules that restrict marriage according to sexuality because it may be a choice, although that is not conclusive? And there is plenty of evidence to support the "born gay" argument, because the same evidence is true for someone to be "born straight".

Also, there were actually a lot of state with interracial marriage bans that included Indians and Chinese, as well as blacks. Some states said that everyone had to marry within their own race, and others just restricted who whites could or could not marry. Just to clarify.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
You keep going with the "negative societal effect" argument. I haven't addressed it, because I dismiss it as narrow-minded. All societal changes have positive and negative effects. A good gauge on the levels of these on society as a whole, is looking at how this effects smaller groups. Families would be one small group to explore. Research certainly shows that gay parents do NOT produce gay children any more than straight parents. Just like gay parents produce straight children at the same levels as straight parents. Your "negative societal effect" argument is completely without foundation, whereas the opposite has some data to support it.

In as far as whether sexual orientation can be changed, no, I've never seen it. I've seen sexual BEHAVIOR change, but not orientation. I've argued this issue with Jerry for years.
Click to expand...

Why is it that homosexuality has existed throughout the known history of our species and yet though tolerated, it's never been accepted? Further, marriage is a societal function, why wouldn't negative societal impact be a concern? I think ignoring it is narrow minded.
 
Last edited:
roguenuke said:
So you don't see the hypocrisy in saying that you are against rules that would restrict marriage according to religious beliefs, when religion is most definitely a choice, but that you are not against rules that restrict marriage according to sexuality because it may be a choice, although that is not conclusive? And there is plenty of evidence to support the "born gay" argument, because the same evidence is true for someone to be "born straight".

Also, there were actually a lot of state with interracial marriage bans that included Indians and Chinese, as well as blacks. Some states said that everyone had to marry within their own race, and others just restricted who whites could or could not marry. Just to clarify.
Click to expand...

No one religion "owns" marriage, that doesn't make it not a religious ideal. There is no conclusive evidence to support either born gay or born straight. By the way, you did not comment on the quote from the article you provided....
 
mac said:
Why is it that homosexuality has existed throughout the known history of our species and yet though tolerated, it's never been accepted?
Click to expand...

Because until fairly recently in history, the Bible has been accepted as a literal interpretation of how society should function. Most science was based on it as was most morality. The literal interpretation. Religion has been the issue.

Further, marriage is a societal function, why wouldn't negative societal impact be a concern? I think ignoring it is narrow minded.
Click to expand...

I never said that negative societal impact wouldn't be a concern. However, you are taking this as your default position, but that position is without any foundation, whereas the positive positon has some.
 
mac said:
There is no conclusive evidence to support either born gay or born straight. By the way, you did not comment on the quote from the article you provided....
Click to expand...

You mean where you quoted that he said it might be a developmental stage, but that this was just a many possibilities? I didn't see a reason to comment. I don't believe that he is correct because I see attraction as something you don't have a choice about. I don't believe homosexuality is a stage someone might go through. I believe, from my knowledge and personal feelings/attractions, that people are attracted to certain kinds of people because of certain features/characteristics of those people. Some people may change what their preferences are, but even those changes probably aren't conscience choices. I think most people keep those preferences throughout life. I also believe that some people may have very detailed and specific preferences, while others have general or few preferences. Everyone is different.
 
Last edited:
mac said:
No one religion "owns" marriage, that doesn't make it not a religious ideal.
Click to expand...

No. Marriage has been around for longer than most current religions. And civil marriage is completely separate from religious marriage. People who have no religion at all can get married. People of different religious beliefs can get a civil marriage, even if they can't get married in one or either of their churches. Civil marriage is a contract between two people to make each other legal family in the eyes of the government, because such unions provide benefits to society and are bestowed benefits/privileges by society because of those benefits. Civil marriage is separate from religious/private marriage. Most of the time, they happen together, but they each can technically exist without each other.
 
roguenuke said:
You mean where you quoted that he said it might be a developmental stage, but that this was just a many possibilities? I didn't see a reason to comment. I don't believe that he is correct because I see attraction as something you don't have a choice about. I don't believe homosexuality is a stage someone might go through. I believe, from my knowledge and personal feelings/attractions, that people are attracted to certain kinds of people because of certain features/characteristics of those people. Some people may change what their preferences are, but even those changes probably aren't conscience choices. I think most people keep those preferences throughout life. I also believe that some people may have very detailed and specific preferences, while others have general or few preferences. Everyone is different.
Click to expand...

So, basically what you're saying is that you have your opinion on the issue and no matter who says what, you believe what you believe. Right?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom